LAO HU NIU, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This case involves the exclusion from the Philippine Islands of a Chinese
woman and her minor children. She claims to be the wife of a.former resident
Chinese merchant who, prior to the attempt of the appellant to enter, died in
the Philippine Islands owning property therein and leaving as his only heirs at
law and next of kin his widow, the appellant herein, and her minor children.

The board of special inquiry refused them permission to enter and that
refusal was affirmed by the Court of First Instance of Manila. This appeal is
from the action taken by the Court of First Instance.

Counsel for appellant says in his brief that: “The question involved here is
a double one: First, as to the right of the widow and the legitimate minor
children of a deceased resident Chinese merchant to enter the Philippine Islands
as such widow and children; and, second, the right of such widow, as a merchant
and the successor to her husband, to enter the said Islands and to bring her
children with her.”

Counsel then says: “It would appear that the first part of the foregoing
questions has been resolved by this honorable tribunal against such right of
entrance.” This statement is true. We have held in the case of Ng Hian
vs. Collector of Customs (34 Phil. Rep., 248) that the widow and minor
children of a deceased Chinese merchant resident and doing business in the
Philippine Islands at the time of his death are not entitled to enter the
Philippine Islands solely by reason of such relationship. Counsel for the
appellant asks us to overrule that decision and admit the applicants in this
case, setting forth with ability arguments to that end. We must say, however,
that, after a careful consideration of such arguments, we are unable to see our
way clear to overrule the former decision and accordingly decline to do so.

With regard to the second question, it may be said .that it does not appear
in the record of this case that the applicant is a merchant. It appears simply
that her husband was, at the time of his death, a resident Chinese merchant
doing business in the Philippine Islands, and that he died leaving property
including a mercantile business. The assumption of the appellant is that the
mere fact of the death of a merchant makes his wife and children also merchants,
as it leaves to them as heirs and next of kin a mercantile business as a part of
their inheritance. We do not believe that this necessarily follows. But if it
does, the fact remains that she is not a resident merchant. She is
still outside of the Philippine Islands and has never held the status of a
resident merchant. She must, therefore, establish her right to enter as
a merchant in the first instance. This she did not do. She did not present the
section six certificate which is the only evidence upon which her right to enter
can be based.

From these observations it necessarily follows that the applicant is not
entitled to enter the Philippine Islands upon the status of her deceased
husband; and that when she seeks to enter upon her own personal status she must
produce the evidence which the law requires to establish that status. Not having
done this her application to enter was properly denied.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.