Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > March 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 9906 March 5, 1915 - YAM KA LIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

030 Phil 46:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 9906. March 5, 1915. ]

YAM KA LIM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor-General Corpus for Appellant.

C. W. O’Brien for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION; DETERMINATION OF RIGHT TO ENTER. — The right to determine whether or not Chinese aliens may enter territory of the United States is conferred exclusively upon the executive department of the Government. Courts have no right to interfere to determine the question of the right of aliens to enter the territory of the United States until after that department of the Government has concluded its investigation of that question. The courts, even after the executive department has concluded its investigation, have no right to intervene until it is shown that said department has abused its power and authority.

2. EVIDENCE; LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES OR STATES. — The statutes of other countries or states must be pleaded and proved the same as any other fact. Courts can not take judicial notice of what such laws are. In the absence of pleading and proof the laws of a foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our own.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


It appears from the record that on or about the 15th day of December, 1913, the said Yam Ka Lim, a person of Chinese race and descent, arrived at the port of Manila from the port of Hongkong and sought admission into the Philippine Islands, as the legitimate minor son of Yam Long Sai, a resident Chinese merchant. His right to enter the Philippine Islands was inquired into by the board of special inquiry which board, after hearing the testimony of witnesses and considering the evidence submitted by the applicant, refused to permit him to land upon the ground that they did not believe him to be the legitimate son of the said Yam Long Sai, as he claimed.

Due notice was given of said decision to Yam Long Sai, as well as to his representative, William Tracey Page, who were informed that they had two days in which to appeal to the Insular Collector of Customs, should they feel dissatisfied with the decision of said board. Later a bond was given for the release of the plaintiff. No appeal was taken from the decision of the board of special inquiry to the Insular Collector of Customs. The decision of the board of special inquiry appears to have been rendered on or about the 15th day of December, 1913. Nothing further seems to have been done by the plaintiff until on or about the 17th day of February, 1914, when he presented his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Upon the presentation of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield granted the same and ordered the Insular Collector of Customs to Produce the body of the plaintiff herein. The Insular Collector of Customs, through the Attorney-General, made answer to said petition and accompanied the same by all of the proof adduced during the hearing before the board of special inquiry.

Without having first decided whether the Collector of Customs had abused his authority, the lower court proceeded to hear evidence upon the question whether or not the said Yam Ka Lim was the legitimate minor son of Yam Long Sai. After hearing the evidence and taking into consideration the laws of China, without any proof as to what they were, the lower court decided that the said Yam Ka Lim was the legitimate son of the said Yam Long Sai and ordered him to be released from the custody of the Collector of Customs and that he be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands and that the said bond theretofore given be canceled.

From that decision the Attorney-General appealed to this court and made the following assignments of error:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. The Court erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to review the decision of the immigration authorities in this case.

Second. The court erred in taking judicial notice of the laws of China relative to marriage and child legitimacy, which differ from those in force in the Philippine Islands.

Third. The court erred in finding that there had been an abuse of discretion and authority on the part of the immigration officials, which warranted the setting aside of their decision in this case.

Fourth. The court erred in ordering the petitioner discharged from the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs.

With reference to the first assignment of error, it may be noted:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the right to determine whether or not Chinese aliens may enter the territory of the United States is conferred exclusively upon a branch of the executive department of the Government.

Second. That the courts have no right to interfere in determining the question of the right of said aliens to enter the territory of the United States until after the executive department of the Government has concluded its investigation of that question.

Third. That the courts, even after the executive department has concluded its investigation, have no right to intervene until it is shown that the executive department of the Government has abused its power and authority.

In the present case the petitioner did not exhaust all of the remedies afforded him by the executive department of the Government. He had the right of appeal to the Insular Collector of Customs, which he did not exercise. It has been frequently decided that until an alien has exhausted his remedy in the executive department of the Government, he is without right to appeal to the judicial department in a case like the present. The appellee not having exhausted his remedy in the executive department of the Government, the courts are without jurisdiction to consider his claim.

What has been said with reference to the first assignment of error is sufficient to show that the courts are without jurisdiction to consider the present case and to justify a reversal of the judgment rendered.

With reference to the second assignment of error, it is quite clear that the lower court committed an error in taking judicial notice of what the laws of marriage in China are. The statutes of other countries must be pleaded and proved the same as any other fact. In the absence of such pleading and proof the laws of a foreign state will be presumed to be the same as our own.

There was ample proof in the record to show, or at least to convince the board of special inquiry, that the said Yam Ka Lim was not the legitimate minor son of the said Yam Long Sai.

The petitioner, not having exhausted the remedies offered to him by the executive department of the Government, had no right to appeal to the courts.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the lower court is hereby revoked and it is hereby ordered that the record be returned to the lower court, with direction that an order be issued returning the plaintiff to the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs, to the end that he may be deported in accordance with the order of the said Collector of Customs. And without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

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

Moreland, J., concurs in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10181 March 2, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO CRAME

    030 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10341 March 3, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO GOMEZ

    030 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 7992 March 4, 1915 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO., ET AL.

    030 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 9906 March 5, 1915 - YAM KA LIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    030 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 8667 March 6, 1915 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    030 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 10228 March 6, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO VILLORENTE, ET AL.

    030 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 9816 March 10, 1915 - FELIX ULLMAN v. VICENTE HERNAEZ

    030 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. 9563 March 11, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. ALFONSO DE OCAMPO, ET AL.

    030 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 9874 March 13, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS GARCIA

    030 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 10215 March 13, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. R. McCULLOUGH DICK

    030 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 10263 March 13, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JAIME FILART, ET AL.

    030 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 9900 March 15, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. PATRICIO C. GUARIN

    030 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 9476 March 17, 1915 - ANTONIO M. BARRETTO v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    030 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 9306 March 18, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO VILLACORTA

    030 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 9842 March 18, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO CORONEL

    030 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 9943 March 18, 1915 - VICENTE SISON, ET AL. v. JULIAN AMBALADA

    030 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 8470 March 19, 1915 - TOMAS SISON v. LEODEGARIO AZARRAGA

    030 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 8919 March 19, 1915 - VICENCIA D. CASIANO v. SIMONA SAMANIEGO

    030 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 9086 March 19, 1915 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE DAYRIT

    030 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 10213 March 19, 1915 - NGO TIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    030 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 10490 March 19, 1915 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA v. GREGORIO PEÑALOSA

    030 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 9571 March 20, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. YEE CHUNG

    030 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 8853 March 22, 1915 - ALDECOA & CO. v. WARNER, BARNES & CO.

    030 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 9954 March 22, 1915 - CARLOS DE LIZARDI v. F. M. YAPTICO

    030 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 10237 March 22, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LIM TIGDIEN, ET AL.

    030 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 6889 March 23, 1915 - JOAQUIN IBAÑEZ DE ALDECOA Y PALET, ET AL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP., ET AL.

    030 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. 8437 March 23, 1915 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. v. ALDECOA & CO., ET AL.

    030 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 8677 March 24, 1915 - MACARIO FACUNDO v. HERMENEGILDA MACAPAGAL, ET AL.

    030 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 9512 March 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO SEVILLA, ET AL.

    030 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 8185 March 25, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO VALDEZ, ET AL.

    030 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 9004 March 25, 1915 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ROMAN CATH. BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES

    030 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 9279 March 25, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO CAPILLO, ET AL.

    030 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. 9511 March 25, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LUSTRADA

    030 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. 9662 March 25, 1915 - LEE WING SENG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    030 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 9741 March 25, 1915 - JOSE PIÑON, ET AL. v. DOLORES R. DE OSORIO

    030 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 9869 March 25, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. FEDERICO CAÑET

    030 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 9972 March 25, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SUMULONG

    030 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 10241 March 25, 1915 - MERALCO v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    030 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 9720 March 26, 1915 - TRINIDAD CARRANCEJA v. P. M. MOIR, ET AL.

    030 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 10252 March 26, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. HON. JOSE C. ABREU, ET AL.

    030 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 9144 March 27, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO DE GUZMAN

    030 Phil 416

  • G.R. Nos. 9638 & 9789 March 27, 1915 - CHUN TOY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    030 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 8312 March 29, 1915 - UY TAM, ET AL. v. THOMAS LEONARD, ET AL.

    030 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 8346 March 30, 1915 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ORIA HERMANOS & CO.

    030 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 8822 March 30, 1915 - BIBIANA ISAAC v. H. W. BRAY, ET AL.

    030 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 9401 March 30, 1915 - ANTONINA LAMPANO v. PLACIDA A. JOSE, ET AL.

    030 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 9453 March 30, 1915 - AUGUSTO TUASON v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    030 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 9522 March 30, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. CASTOR REYES, ET AL.

    030 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 9706 March 30, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO AZAJAR

    030 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 10577 March 30, 1915 - T. L. McGIRR v. L. PORTER HAMILTON, ET AL.

    030 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 6355 March 31, 1915 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    030 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 8646 March 31, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO SIY CONG BIENG, ET AL.

    030 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 9043 March 31, 1915 - ANIANO MAGNO, ET AL. v. SERVANDO CASTRO, ET AL.

    030 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 9064 March 31, 1915 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. MACARIO ARNEDO, ET AL.

    030 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 9069 March 31, 1915 - MUN. OF CAVITE v. HILARIA ROJAS, ET AL.

    030 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 9126 March 31, 1915 - NEMESIO MONTEVERDE v. NAKATA

    030 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 9150 March 31, 1915 - MARIANO LEANO v. ARCADIO LEAÑO

    030 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 9309 March 31, 1915 - GAN BUN CHO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    030 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 9370 March 31, 1915 - K. S. YOUNG v. MIDLAND TEXTILE INS. CO.

    030 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 9734 March 31, 1915 - JUAN BAHIA v. FAUSTA LITONJUA, ET AL.

    030 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 6665 March 30, 1912

    CLEMENTE MANOTOC v. FLORA CHOCO Y REYES, ET AL.

    030 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 8095 November 5, 1914 & March 31, 1915 - F. C. FISHER v. YANGCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY

    031 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9786 March 31, 1915 - ARSENIA CHAVES, ETAL v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT CO.

    031 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. 9983 March 31, 1916

    RUFINO TAN GUAN SIEN v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    031 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 10038 March 31, 1915 - MARCELO DE LEON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    031 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 10087 March 31, 1916

    RUFINA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. SI PENG, ETAL

    031 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 10105 March 31, 1915 - RAFAEL MOLINA SALVADOR v. ENRIQUE F. SOMES

    031 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 10198 March 31, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. CIPRIANO AGCAOILI

    031 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 10292 March 31, 1915 - EUSTAQUIO CONCHADA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    031 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 10385 March 31, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LIM KIU ENG

    031 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. 10713 March 31, 1915 - MLA. RAILROAD CO., ET AL v. HON. ISIDRO PAREDES

    031 Phil 118