G.R. No. 12016; November 17, 1916
JAO QUIM CHO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE CITY OF CEBU, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Jao Quim Cho, an 18-year-old minor, is the son of a Chinese merchant who was a legal resident of the Philippine Islands. The appellant had previously been legally admitted into the Philippines as the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant. In 1911, he temporarily returned to China for a visit. Before his departure, he inquired with the Collector of Customs about obtaining a certificate for reentry but was informed it was unnecessary due to his status as a minor dependent of a resident Chinese merchant. His father had also gone to China due to illness but intended to return upon recovery and held a valid certificate of residence. When the appellant sought to reenter the Philippines in 1916, the Collector of Customs denied him entry. The appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which upheld the Collector’s decision and ordered his deportation. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether a minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, who had been legally admitted into the Philippines, may reenter the country after a temporary absence abroad, despite his father being temporarily absent at the time of reentry.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court’s decision and allowed the appellant to enter the Philippines.

The Court held that a minor child of a resident Chinese merchant, once legally admitted into the Philippines, enjoys the right to reenter after a temporary absence, even if the father is temporarily abroad. The appellant’s initial admission was lawful, and as a minor dependent, he was not required to present a “section six certificate” under the Chinese Exclusion Laws. The Court cited precedents establishing that lawful admission grants Chinese residents the right to come and go freely, akin to aliens from other nations. This privilege extends to the wives and minor children of resident Chinese merchants, who are permitted entry without the certificate.

The Collector of Customs abused his authority by denying entry despite clear evidence of the appellant’s right. The father’s temporary absence did not negate this right, as he retained his status as a resident merchant with the intent to return. The Chinese Exclusion Laws should not be applied to exclude persons entitled to entry under established legal principles.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court is revoked. The appellant is permitted to enter the Philippine Islands. No costs awarded.

NOTE: Justice Moreland dissented, arguing that the father’s five-year absence undermined the claim of intent to return and that the minor’s right to entry depends on the father’s presence and right to reside in the Philippines.