CHUA SHUN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

From an examination of the record, the following facts seem to be established
by a large preponderance of the evidence:

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 Philippine 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 Philippine 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.”

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.”

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.”

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.
vs. Gue Lim, 176 U. S., 459; Lo Po vs. McCoy, 8 Phil. Rep.,
343; U. S. vs. 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. vs. Gue Lim, 176 U. S., 459; U. S. vs. 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.