Chua Shun v. Insular Collector of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Chua Shun, a minor about 20 years of age and the legitimate son of Chua Pingco, a Chinese merchant resident in the Philippine Islands, first entered the Philippines in 1903 or 1904. He resided in the Islands until 1907, when he returned to China with his father, and re-entered the Philippines with his father in the same year. He remained in the Philippines until November 1909, when he again visited China. His father, Chua Pingco, died in Manila on January 10, 1909, leaving an estate valued at P186,000. Chua Shun obtained court permission and his guardian's consent to leave for China in November 1909. His share in the estate exceeded P6,000, and he was engaged in the cigarette business in Manila. Procedural History: Chua Shun returned to the Philippine Islands on January 2, 1913, and was refused admission on the ground that he was a person of Chinese descent. The Board of Special Inquiry denied his admission, stating he lacked the required certificate for admission as an exempt class Chinese, as his father was no longer alive. The Insular Collector of Customs affirmed this decision, noting that at the time of Chua Shun's entrance and departure, his father was deceased. Chua Shun then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The lower court found that Chua Shun was the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, had resided in Manila for over five years, succeeded to a portion of his father's business as heir, and had left the Islands by court order for health reasons. The lower court reversed the Collector of Customs' order and admitted Chua Shun. The Petition: The Insular Collector of Customs appealed the lower court's decision to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the death of Chua Shun's father deprived him of the right to continue residing in the Philippine Islands.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of a father, a resident Chinese merchant, deprives his minor son, who had been previously admitted to the Philippine Islands and resided therein, of the right to continue residing in or re-enter the Philippine Islands. Whether leaving the Philippine Islands for a short period for the purpose of regaining health, after the father's death, constitutes a loss of residence in the Philippine Islands.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, admitting Chua Shun into the Philippine Islands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the death of the father deprives the minor son of the right to reside in the Philippines: The Court held that the death of Chua Pingco, the father and resident Chinese merchant, did not deprive his minor son, Chua Shun, of the right to continue residing in or re-enter the Philippine Islands. The Court reasoned that Chua Shun had been permitted to land as the legitimate minor son of a resident Chinese merchant and had resided in the Islands with his father for over three years. Having been admitted and become part of the population, the mere death of his father should not divest him of his right to remain. The Court emphasized that Congress did not intend to prohibit Chinese aliens from continuing to reside in U.S. territory under such circumstances, nor did it intend for minor children of resident Chinese merchants, once admitted and residing with their parents, to lose their right to remain or re-enter simply because their parents subsequently died. The Court cited U.S. v. Gue Lim and U.S. v. Yu Kiao in support of this principle. On the issue of whether leaving for health reasons constitutes a loss of residence: The Court found that Chua Shun's departure from the Islands in November 1909, ten or eleven months after his father's death, was for the purpose of regaining his health, and he had obtained court permission and his guardian's consent to do so. The Court stated that if Chua Shun had remained in the Philippine Islands after his father's death, he could not have been deported. Therefore, leaving for a short period for health reasons, under these circumstances, did not result in a loss of his residence in the Philippine Islands. The Court also noted that while he did not obtain the usual certificate from the Insular Collector of Customs upon leaving in January 1909, such a certificate was deemed unnecessary at that time, referencing U.S. v. Gue Lim, Lo Po v. McCoy, and U.S. v. Yu Kiao.
Main Doctrine
The death of a father, a resident Chinese merchant, does not deprive his minor son, who had been previously admitted to the Philippine Islands as such and had resided therein, of the right to continue residing in or re-enter the Philippine Islands.