G.R. No. L-11077, December 9, 1915

FACTS:
On May 3, 1915, Yap Tian Un (Sun), a Chinese national, arrived at the port of Manila and sought admission into the Philippine Islands. He alleged that he was a 17-year-old minor, born in China to Chinese parents, and that he had never been in the Philippines before. He further stated that his father, who had been a merchant in the Philippines, had died eleven years prior, and that his mother and siblings remained in China. Yap Tian Un did not possess the “section six certificate” required for entry under the Chinese Exclusion Laws. The Board of Special Inquiry denied his entry and ordered his deportation to China. This decision was affirmed by the Insular Collector of Customs. Subsequently, Yap Tian Un filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The lower court granted the petition, ruling that as the minor son of a deceased Chinese merchant who had resided in the Philippines, he was entitled to enter. The court thus revoked the Collector’s decision and ordered his release. The Insular Collector of Customs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
May the minor son of a deceased resident Chinese merchant, who himself has never resided in the Philippine Islands, enter the territory of the United States (which then included the Philippines) without the required “section six certificate”?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court, sitting en banc, held that a minor child of a Chinese merchant is not permitted to enter the Philippines after the death of the father if the child had never previously resided in the Islands and does not possess the “section six certificate.” This ruling reaffirmed established doctrine from prior cases, including Tan Lian Jo vs. Collector of Customs and Lee Jua vs. Collector of Customs, which held that the right of the wife and minor children of a resident Chinese merchant to enter is contingent upon the merchant being alive. Upon the father’s death, that derivative right ceases. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the record returned to the lower court with instructions to deny the writ of habeas corpus, affirm the Collector of Customs’ order of deportation, and remand the petitioner to the Collector for deportation.