ANG CHAY TIAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANt.

On December 15, 1909, a landing
certificate of residence was issued to Ang Chay Tian by the Insular
Collector of Customs on the claim that he was the minor son of Ang Song
Tan or Ang Song Tin, then a resident Chinese merchant in the
Philippines. “He was at that time about ten years of age. When he was
twenty-one, his alleged father gave him a half interest in his
business, and since that time he has been a merchant in the City of
Manila. His father has since died. Having become involved in court
proceedings with his step-mother, the widow of his father, she reported
to the immigration authorities that Ang Chay Tian was not a son but an
adopted brother.

On this information a warrant of arrest was issued and the board
of special inquiry held that he was not a minor son of Ang Song Tan on
December 15, 1909, and recommended that he be deported, which
recommendation was approved by the Insular Collector of Customs.
Whereupon Ang Chay Tian applied to the Court of First Instance of
Manila for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Court of First Instance denied the writ applied for “without
prejudice to the petitioner’s right to file a petition to remain in the
Philippines as a merchant.” The Insular Collector of Customs brings
this appeal and makes the following assignment of error:

“The lower court erred:

“In finding that
petitioner having become a merchant after having gained his admission
into this country through fraudulent and false representations, may now
be allowed to remain in the Philippine Islands, should he desire to
file a petition to that effect.”

No appeal was taken by the petitioner, and at first glance it would
seem that the only question presented was the reservation made by the
trial court. But the proceedings are of such a nature that they are not
so divisible, and we will therefore proceed to treat the case as if it
were presented in its entirety.

It is to be noted that this is not a case of petitioner seeking to
land but is an action of the Collector of Customs seeking to deport a
merchant in the Philippine Islands for an alleged fraud committed
twenty-five years ago. The papers submitted to the board of special
inquiry would indicate that petitioner landed in this country in 1924
and again in 1933. The evidence is conclusive that at both of those
dates he was a bona fide merchant.

On a deportation case the inquiry should be directed to his last
entry or to conduct denounced by statute as grounds for deportation.
Without considering whether the five-year limitation on deportation of
Chinese by administrative action is still in force, it is clear in the
instant case that he had a right as a merchant to enter the Philippines
the last two times he entered and that he is therefore not subject to
deportation for any misrepresentation his alleged father may have
committed in 1909.

The writ of habeas corpus therefore should have been granted and
the prisoner discharged from custody. So ordered. Costs in both
instances de oficio.

Street, Abad Santos, Vickers, and Diaz, JJ., concur.