Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > October 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 9855 October 6, 1914 - CHUA SHUN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

028 Phil 175:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 9855. October 6, 1914. ]

CHUA SHUN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor-General Corpus, for Appellant.

Beaumont, Tenney & Ferrier for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ALIENS; CHINESE; EIGHT OF MINORS TO REMAIN IN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES. — When a Chinese minor has been admitted into territory of the United States as the minor child of a resident Chinese merchant, he has a right to remain in said territory and does not lose such rig ht by the death of his parents.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


From an examination of the record, the following facts seem to be established by a large preponderance of the evidence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the said Chua Shun is a person of Chinese descent, a minor about 20 years of age, and the legitimate son of Chua Pingco.

Second. That the said Chua Pingco was a Chinese merchant and a resident of the Philippine Islands.

Third. That the said Chua Shun came to the Philippine Islands the first time when he was about 11 years of age, in the year 1903 or 1904, and was permitted to enter the Islands as the minor and legitimate son of Chua Pingco.

Fourth. That the said Chua Shun remained in the Philippine Islands until the year 1907, when he returned to China, in company with his father; that he returned from China to the Philippine Islands in the same year (1907), with his father and they were both permitted to enter.

Fifth. That the said Chua Shun remained in the Philip- pine Islands after his return in 1907, until the month of November, 1909, when he again visited China.

Sixth. That the said Chua Pingco, while still a resident merchant of the Philippine Islands, died in the city of Manila, on the 10th day of January, 1909.

Seventh. That Chua Pingco left an estate in the Philip- pine Islands valued at about P186,000.

Eighth. That an administrator was duly appointed for his estate; that a guardian was appointed for his minor children; that before Chua Shun returned to China in the month of November, 1909, he obtained permission of the court, as well as the consent of his guardian, so to do.

Ninth. That the share of the estate of Chua Pingco belonging to the said Chua Shun was more than P6,000.

Tenth. That Chua Shun was engaged in the cigarette business in the city of Manila.

Eleventh. That he returned to the Philippine Islands on the steamship Taisang on the 2d day of January, 1913 while he was still a minor of about 20 years of age, and was refused admission, upon the ground that he was a person of Chinese descent.

The board of special inquiry, after hearing the evidence presented by the said Chua Shun relating to his right to land in the Philippine Islands, in its order denying to him the right to enter, said: "As the only right of the detained to enter the Philippine Islands would be the actual presence of his father, the board finds and decides that the said Chua Shun is coming to the Philippine Islands without the certificate required by law for the admission of Chinese of the exempt class, and he is, therefore, refused landing."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this decision Chua Shun appealed to the Insular Collector of Customs. In passing upon the questions presented by the appeal, the Honorable B. Herstein, Insular Collector of Customs, among other things, said: "He cannot be admitted as the legitimate minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, by reason of the fact that not alone at the time of his entrance on January 2, 1913, but also at the time of his departure in November, 1909, his father was dead."cralaw virtua1aw library

Immediately after the petitioner was denied the right to admission into the Philippine Islands, he presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. The petition was duly considered by the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, who found as a fact: "That Chua Shun is the minor son of a Chinese merchant, residing in and doing business in the city of Manila, and that the petitioner resided, as such minor son, in the city of Manila for more than five years; that his father died and the petitioner succeeded to a portion of his father’s mercantile business, as heir thereto, and, because of his minor age, became a ward of this court and was allowed to leave the Philippine Islands, by order of the court, on account of his health; that upon his return from his journey of health seeking, he was refused landing in the Philippine Islands, on the ground that his father was no longer a resident of the Philippine Islands."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the foregoing facts, the lower court reversed the order of the Collector of Customs and admitted Chua Shun into the Philippine Islands. From that order the Insular Collector of Customs appealed to this court.

The only question which is left for us to decide is whether or not the death of the father of Chua Shun had the effect of depriving him of the right to continue to reside in the Philippine Islands. It will be remembered that he was permitted to land as the legitimate minor son of Chua Pingco and had continued to reside in the Philippine Islands with his father for a period of more than three years, and that the occasion of his leaving the islands ten or eleven months after the death of his father was to regain his health. We do not believe, had he remained in the Philippine Islands after the death of his father, that he could have been deported upon any theory, having once been admitted as the legitimate minor son of a resident Chinese merchant. As such legitimate minor son, having once been admitted and having become a part of the population of the country, we do not believe that the mere death of his father had the effect of depriving him of his right to remain. And if he had the right to remain, we cannot understand upon what theory he lost his residence in the Philippine Islands, simply by the fact that he left the Islands for a short period for the purpose of regaining his health. It is true that when he left the Islands on the 2d day of January, 1909, he did not get the usual document from the Insular Collector of Customs which is obtained by Chinamen generally who leave the Philippine Islands with the intention of returning. At that time, however, we are of the opinion that such certificate was unnecessary. (U. S. v. Gue Lim, 176 U. S., 459; Lo Po v. McCoy, 8 Phil. Rep., 343; U. S. v. Yu Kiao, 20 Phil. Rep., 307.) We do not believe that Congress intended, when it adopted the Chinese Exclusion Laws, to prohibit Chinese aliens from continuing to reside in the territory of the United States, under the circumstances such as exist in the present case. Neither do we believe, after the minor children of resident Chinese merchants in the territory of the United States have been admitted and have resided in such territory with their parents, that they lose their right to remain in or to reenter said territory, simply because subsequent to their entrance their parents have died. (U. S. v. Gue Lim, 176 U. S., 459; U. S. v. Yu Kiao, 20 Phil. Rep., 307.)

Therefore the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., concurs in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 7760 October 1, 1914 - E. M. WRIGHT v. MANILA ELECTRIC R. R. & LIGHT CO.

    028 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 9600 October 1, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO GACUTAN

    028 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 9609, 9610 & 9611 October 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIA AVILLAR

    028 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 8231 October 3, 1914 - PROSPERO K. ALAFRIZ v. PIA MINA

    028 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 9791 October 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE F. SOTELO

    028 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 9378 October 6, 1914 - BENITO RABAJANTE v. P. M. MOIR, ET AL.

    028 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 9475 October 6, 1914 - JOSE CALDERON v. LA PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO DE PP. DOMINICOS DE FILIPINAS

    028 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 9679 October 6, 1914 - MATEO LABIANO v. W. E. McMAHON, ET AL.

    028 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 9855 October 6, 1914 - CHUA SHUN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    028 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 7690 October 9, 1914 - CHUA DOC DE v. ARTADI & COMPANY

    028 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 7944 October 9, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. MASTER OF THE S. S. "TEAN"

    028 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 8611 October 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO GARING

    028 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 8727 October 13, 1914 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. J. MC-MICKING, ET AL.

    028 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 9387 October 13, 1914 - TIBURCIA DE LIZA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    028 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 9415 October 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ONG TO

    028 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 9716 October 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN V. RAMOS

    028 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 9247 October 15, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GENARO PASCA

    028 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 9030 October 16, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO ROSALES, ET AL.

    028 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. 9772 October 16, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO SERRANO, ET AL.

    028 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 9305 October 17, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR VITUG

    028 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 9459 October 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO CAMARA

    028 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 9784 October 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ONG SHIU

    028 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9197 October 22, 1914 - HERMOGENA SANTOS v. MIGUEL ROBLEDO ET AL.

    028 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8715 October 24, 1914 - MARIANO VELOSO v. LUCIA MARTINEZ

    028 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 8938 October 24, 1914 - PETRONA VILORIA v. ESPERANZA AQUINO

    028 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8147 October 26, 1914 - G. URRUTIA & CO. v. AMALIA MORENO, ET AL.

    028 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 9183 October 28, 1914 - EVARISTA SINAPILO v. PETRA GRACIA

    028 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 9737 October 28, 1914 - HO NINA, ET AL. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    028 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. 9444 October 29, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SOFRONIO DE LA CRUZ

    028 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 9537 October 29, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FILOMENO CASSION, ET AL.

    028 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 8746 October 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. v. STEAMSHIP ISLAS FILIPINAS

    028 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9915 October 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CHIEN SUEY

    028 Phil 300