Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > March 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 10213 March 19, 1915 - NGO TIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

030 Phil 144:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 10213. March 19, 1915. ]

NGO TIM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor-General Corpus for Appellant.

Beaumont & Tenney for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION; BURDEN OF PROOF. — Where a Chinese alien alleges that he is a merchant within the territory of the United States, the burden is upon him to establish the fact. Whether or not an alien is a merchant, does not necessarily depend upon the amount of money invested. It is sufficient that the business was that of a merchant and that he had a substantial and real interest in the same. The law does not require a large amount of money to be invested in order to constitute a mercantile business. He must have, however, a substantial and real interest in a real mercantile business. His name need not, however, appear as a member of the firm or as engaged in the business, if it is proven that he has a real and substantial interest in the same. The whole purpose is to inquire if he is a bona fide merchant, having in his own right an interest in a real mercantile business, in which he does only the manual labor necessary to the conduct thereof.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


It appears from the record that on or about the 13th day of June, 1914, the petitioner arrived at the port of Manila on the steamship Linan, and asked permission to enter the Philippine Islands, as the legitimate minor son of a resident Chinese merchant by the name of Ngo Yap. His right to land was inquired into by the board of special inquiry who, after hearing several witnesses, reached the conclusion that the alleged father, Ngo Yap, was not a resident merchant and therefore denied him the right to land. Later a rehearing was granted and several more witnesses were called for the purpose of showing that the said Ngo Yap was a resident Chinese merchant. The board again, after hearing said witnesses, found that Ngo Yap was not a resident Chinese merchant. An appeal was taken from the decision of the board of special inquiry to the Collector of Customs, who affirmed said decision.

Later a petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila and the Solicitor-General, for and on behalf of the Collector of Customs, answered said petition and made a part of his answer the entire record of the department of customs. After a consideration of said record, the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, judge, reached the conclusion that the said Ngo Yap was a resident Chinese merchant and that his minor son, Ngo Tim, had a right to enter the Philippine Islands.

From that decision the Insular Collector of Customs appealed to this court. The only question presented by the appeal is whether or not the facts adduced before the board of special inquiry showed that the said Ngo Yap is a merchant within the definition and meaning of that term as used in the Chinese Exclusion Law.

It is a rule well established in cases like the present, where a Chinaman alleges that he is a merchant within the territory of the United States, that the burden is upon him to prove that fact. (U. S. v. Lung Hong, 105 Fed. Rep., 188; U. S. v. Lee You Wing, 211 Fed. Rep., 939.) In an effort to discharge that burden, the said Ngo Yap presented a number of witnesses in support of his own declaration. He testified that he was 57 years old; that he was engaged in the drug business at No. 407 Calle Nueva, in the city of Manila; that he had a partner and that he had about P4,000 invested in said business. Several other witnesses were presented, who swore that they knew the said Ngo Yap; that he was engaged in the drug business on Calle Nueva, some of whom stated that the merchandise in said business amounted to about P8,000. Other witnesses estimated the value of the merchandise in said business at between seven and eight thousand pesos. There is positively no proof to the contrary in the record, except a memorandum written into the record, which is not supported by any documentary proof whatever, to the effect that the said Ngo Yap, in the month of February, 1914, presented a merchant’s affidavit, in which he stated that he was conducting a drug and medical business at No. 407 Calle Nueva, in the city of Manila, and that his application was denied. Said memorandum further shows that Ngo Yap presented a statement of his taxes showing that he had paid P13.33 for the first quarter of 1914, being one-third of 1 per cent of the gross sales for that period. He also presented a retail liquor dealer’s license, showing that he had paid P24 for the last six months. He also presented a druggist liquor dealer’s license, showing that he paid a 10-peso fee for the first quarter of the year. Said memorandum further shows that he presented a certificate of residence. Said memorandum further shows that an investigation was made by the Bureau of Customs as to the value of his business, as a result of which it was found that his entire stock was estimated by said Bureau to be worth about P800. Said investigation seems to have been made on or about the 5th of February, 1914.

It would seem from said memorandum that the customs department refused to issue to the said Ngo Yap the usual merchant’s certificate upon the ground that his business was so insignificant that they could not consider him a merchant. It is a matter of common knowledge that the actual stock of goods on hand in mercantile establishments varies from time to time, even from day to day, and much more from month to month. Moreover, there is no proof in said memorandum, even admitting the same as proof in the case, that the inspector who made the examination had any knowledge whatever of the value of drugs. The value of drugs cannot be fixed by bulk. It is also to be noted that the examination of the said Ngo Yap in the present case took place several months after the date of said examination. At the time he swore positively that he had invested in said business about q?’4,000. The fact that the value of the merchandise on hand in February was only P800 is no proof that it was not P4,000 in June. Two or three other witnesses estimated the value of the merchandise in said business at seven or eight thousand pesos. Even granting that the report of the inspector as found in said memorandum was correct and that P800 did represent the amount of the merchandise employed in said business, yet that fact would not be sufficient to conclude that Ngo Yap was not a merchant It is sufficient if the business was that of a merchant and that he had a substantial and real interest in the same. The law does not require a large amount of money to be invested in order to constitute a mercantile business.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Tom Hong v. United States (193 U. S., 517, 521), held that in order to be a "merchant," the man must have a substantial and real interest in the business. It is not necessary that his name appear as a member of the firm or as engaged in the business, if it is proven that he has a real and substantial interest in the same. The main purpose is to inquire if the person is a bona fide merchant, having is his own right an interest in a real mercantile business, is which he does only the manual labor necessary to the conduct thereof.

In the present case there is absolutely no proof showing that the said Ngo Yap is not a merchant. All of the proof shows the contrary — that he is a merchant residing in to city of Manila.

For all of the foregoing reasons, in our opinion the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed with costs. So ordered.

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

Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur 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