G.R. No. L‑3495
December 7, 1906

FACTS
– Juan Ocaba, a minor Chinese national, arrived at Cebu on 17 Jan 1905 and was refused admission by Collector James J. Rafferty.
– He posted a US‑$1,000 bond and, pending appeal, was allowed to remain on shore. The Insular Collector affirmed the refusal on 10 Feb 1905.
– On 27 Feb 1905 the Cebu Court of First Instance (CFI) approved his adoption by Co Quip Jat, ordering that he be known as Juan Co.
– Rafferty again denied a petition to allow Juan Co to stay; the Insular Collector and the Secretary of Finance and Justice likewise affirmed the denial.
– Juan Co (as plaintiff) sought a preliminary injunction from the CFI prohibiting Rafferty from deporting him. The injunction was granted and later made permanent by a judgment‑by‑default (issued 14 Apr 1906) that permanently enjoined Rafferty from deporting Juan Co. Rafferty never received notice of this judgment.
– Rafferty filed a demurrer, contending that the CFI lacked jurisdiction over the subject‑matter (the right of a Chinese alien to remain in the Philippines) and that, even assuming jurisdiction, the complaint failed to state a cause of action for a prohibition remedy.

ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to issue a final judgment (and permanent injunction) enjoining the Collector of Customs from deporting a Chinese minor, and, assuming jurisdiction, whether the plaintiff’s amended complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for a writ of prohibition.

RULING
1. Jurisdiction over subject‑matter: The Supreme Court of the United States, in Japanese Immigrant and United States v. Ju Toy, held that administrative officers may not arbitrarily deprive an alien of liberty without due process, and that courts may intervene when such liberty is at stake. However, the plaintiff bears the burden of affirmatively proving that the CFI lacked jurisdiction over the specific issue. The amended complaint offered no such proof; it merely alleged the judgment’s existence. Accordingly, jurisdiction was not conclusively shown to be absent.

2. Prohibition remedy: A writ of prohibition lies only when the challenged court is about to act or is acting unlawfully in the future. Both the adoption decree and the permanent injunction were final judgments; the complaint made no allegation that the CFI intended further action. Hence, no ground for prohibition existed.

3. The demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff was granted ten (10) days to amend the complaint to either (a) plead facts showing the CFI lacked jurisdiction over the subject‑matter, or (b) allege a concrete, prospective act warranting a prohibition writ.

Disposition: Demurrer sustained; plaintiff may amend complaint within ten days.