G.R. No. L-4602
JUAN CO, by Martin M. Levering, his curator ad litem, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JAMES J. RAFFERTY, collector of customs, defendant-appellee.
October 4, 1909

FACTS:
On February 18, 1905, Juan Co, claiming to be a 17-year-old native-born citizen of Cebu (illegitimate son of a Filipino mother and Chinese father), arrived from China and sought to land in Cebu. Customs authorities, however, refused him disembarkation, identifying him as a Chinese subject. Juan Co alleged that his father took him to China at age 6 or 7, where his father remained, and he was now returning to reside in his birthplace.

The Collector of Customs of Cebu, James J. Rafferty, personally investigated Juan Co’s claims, hearing testimony from him, his alleged mother, and other witnesses. A commission was also appointed, which similarly heard evidence and concluded that Juan Co’s claims were not sustained and he was not entitled to land. Rafferty approved these findings and ordered deportation. This decision was further affirmed by the Collector of Customs for the Philippine Islands and later by the Secretary of Finance and Justice.

During these proceedings, Juan Co was permitted to land in Cebu under a bond, conditioned on his deportation if his entry was finally denied. While under bond, on February 27, 1905, Juan Co initiated adoption proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Cebu and was successfully adopted by Co Kip Jat, a Chinese resident of Cebu.

After the customs authorities’ final decision against his right to land, Juan Co, on February 28, 1907, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for a perpetual prohibition preventing his deportation. He based his claim on two grounds: 1) his birth in Cebu made him a natural-born citizen, and 2) his subsequent adoption by a resident of the Philippine Islands conferred upon him the right to remain. The CFI rendered a decision adverse to Juan Co, who then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
1. Is the decision of the administrative customs authorities on a question of citizenship, for purposes of entry into the Philippine Islands, final and not subject to judicial review, in the absence of an allegation and proof of abuse of discretion?
2. Does an adoption by a resident of the Philippine Islands, occurring while an alien claimant is conditionally admitted under bond, confer citizenship or a right to remain, thereby overriding a prior denial of entry by customs authorities?

RULING:
1. YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the finality of the administrative decision. Citing Ngo-Ti vs. Shuster (7 Phil. Rep., 355) and United States vs. Ju-Toy (198 U.S., 253), the Court held that the decision of administrative officers on the question of citizenship, particularly concerning the right to enter the country, is final. Due process of law in such cases does not require a judicial trial. While Juan Co alleged an abuse of discretion by customs officials, no proof sustaining this allegation was presented in the record. Thus, the customs authorities’ finding that Juan Co was not born in the Philippine Islands and had no right to be admitted stands.

2. NO. The Court ruled that Juan Co’s status and right to enter the Philippine Islands are to be determined as of the time he presented himself for entry, and not by events that transpired subsequently. Since he was not entitled to land as a matter of right when he was initially admitted under bond, he could not, while present under that bond, perform any act (like adoption) that would validate or make unconditional his original entry. The subsequent adoption, therefore, did not grant him citizenship or a right to remain, and could not alter his status determined at the time of his initial application for entry.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.