G.R. No. L-4839

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SY QUIAT, defendant-appellee.

February 1, 1909

FACTS:
The United States appealed from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila discharging Sy Quiat from custody. The proceedings were initiated under Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission, alleging that Sy Quiat, a Chinese laborer, was found in Manila on January 23, 1908, without the prescribed certificate of residence, and had never acquired one.

The trial court found that Sy Quiat was born in Amoy, China, had been in the Philippine Islands since 1889, and was a joint owner with his partner in a store in Manila. While partnership papers were in both their names, the business license was in the name of his partner, Chua Chui. The trial court concluded that Sy Quiat was not a Chinese laborer.

Sy Quiat’s defense was that he was a merchant, not a laborer, and that his failure to obtain a certificate was due to sickness (a bullet wound) for 22 months, during which the registration period expired. He claimed that by the time he recovered in 1905, “they were not issuing any more certificates.” Evidence showed he co-owned a cigar and sari-sari store valued at P4,000 with Chua Chui, but the business and its license were solely in Chua Chui’s name, a practice Sy Quiat claimed was common among Chinese.

ISSUE:
Was Sy Quiat a “merchant” exempt from the registration requirements and deportation under the Chinese Exclusion Acts, or was he a “Chinese laborer” subject to deportation for failing to obtain a certificate of residence?

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

The Court held that under Section 5 of Act No. 702 , every Chinese person found without the prescribed certificate after the registration period is presumed to be a Chinese laborer, subject to deportation, unless satisfactory proof to the contrary is presented. The burden of proof rests upon the defendant to show that he is not a Chinese laborer.

Citing jurisprudence from U.S. federal courts, the Court emphasized that to be considered a “merchant” under the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the business must be conducted in the Chinese person’s own name, or in a firm name of which his own is a part. This requirement prevents fraudulent claims of merchant status. Simply having an interest in a business, keeping books, or selling goods is insufficient if the business is not publicly recognized under the individual’s name. Furthermore, a “merchant” is strictly defined as “a person engaged in buying and selling merchandise” and may not engage in manual labor except what is necessary for their mercantile business.

In Sy Quiat’s case, while he claimed to be a partner and co-owner of a store, the evidence clearly showed that the business was conducted and licensed solely in the name of his partner, Chua Chui. Therefore, Sy Quiat failed to establish his status as a “merchant” within the meaning of the law. He was, consequently, deemed a “Chinese laborer” who neglected to register.

The trial court’s judgment discharging Sy Quiat from custody was reversed, and the Court ordered his deportation from the Philippine Islands.