G.R. No. L-16643 - OCTOBER 1921 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-16643October 29, 1921 Dataram Valiram, et al. vs. Insular Collector Customs G.R. No. L-15990October 29, 1921 Patricio Aliño vs. Fortunato Adove, et al. G.R. No. L-16212October 27, 1921 Eligio Gatmaitan, et al. vs. Juan Nepomuceno G.R. No. L-17986October 21, 1921 Luis Guzman vs. Faustino Lichauco G.R. No. L-16318October 21, 1921 Pang Lim, et al. vs. Lo Seng G.R. No. L-13695October 18, 1921 Standard Oil Company of New York vs. Manuel Lopez Castelo G.R. No. L-15674October 17, 1921 Consolacion Gabeto vs. Agaton Araneta G.R. No. L-15648October 13, 1921 Provincial Government of Bulacan vs. Ursula Aduna, et al. Provincial Government of Bulacan vs. Donato Teodoro, et al. G.R. No. L-17312October 12, 1921 United States vs. Jose Magno G.R. No. L-16420October 12, 1921 Agripino Mendoza vs. Primitivo Kalaw G.R. No. L-16173October 6, 1921 Director of Lands vs. Juan M. Agustin, et al. G.R. No. L-16968October 6, 1921 People of the Philippine vs. Chan Fook G.R. No. L-16014October 4, 1921 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Wenceslao Trinidad G.R. No. L-16569October 3, 1921 Freixas and Company vs. Pacific Mail Steamship Company G.R. No. L-17333October 3, 1921 United States vs. Tieng Pay G.R. No. L-17558October 3, 1921 Sam Mow Tow vs. Vicente Aldanese G.R. No. L-16598October 3, 1921 H. E. Heacock Company vs. Macondray and Company Inc. G.R. No. L-16397October 3, 1921 Dy Buncio vs. Tan Tiao Bok, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Dataram Valiram, et al. vs. Insular Collector Customs Patricio Aliño vs. Fortunato Adove, et al. Eligio Gatmaitan, et al. vs. Juan Nepomuceno Luis Guzman vs. Faustino Lichauco Pang Lim, et al. vs. Lo Seng Standard Oil Company of New York vs. Manuel Lopez Castelo Consolacion Gabeto vs. Agaton Araneta Provincial Government of Bulacan vs. Ursula Aduna, et al. Provincial Government of Bulacan vs. Donato Teodoro, et al. United States vs. Jose Magno Agripino Mendoza vs. Primitivo Kalaw Director of Lands vs. Juan M. Agustin, et al. People of the Philippine vs. Chan Fook Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Wenceslao Trinidad Freixas and Company vs. Pacific Mail Steamship Company United States vs. Tieng Pay Sam Mow Tow vs. Vicente Aldanese H. E. Heacock Company vs. Macondray and Company Inc. Dy Buncio vs. Tan Tiao Bok, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16643             October 29, 1921

DATARAM VALIRAM, HASSOMAL GHANSWANDAS and RUPCHAND ASSANDAS,petitioners-appellees,
vs.
THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,respondent-appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Feria for appellant.
M. G. Goyena for appellees.

JOHNSON,J.:

It appears from the record that said appellees arrived at the port of Manila on the steamshipNiko Maruon the 27th day of October, 1919, and asked permission to enter the Philippine Islands. Some question arose concerning their right to enter, and a board of special inquiry was appointed for the purpose of examining into that question. The investigation commenced on the 4th day of November, 1919. The only witnesses presented were the applicants themselves.

After hearing the evidence, the board of special inquiry found that said applicants were not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands. From that decision an appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs, who affirmed the same. Later, the applicants presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. After a consideration of the record made in the department of customs, the Hon. George R. Harvey reached the conclusion that the petitioners were entitled to enter the Philippine Islands, granted the writ ofhabeas corpus, and ordered the petitioners discharged from the custody of the law. From that decision the Collector of Customs appealed to this court.1awph!l.net

The appellees base their right to enter the Philippine Islands upon the claim that they are merchants. An examination of the record shows that they came from India, and from that part of India the inhabitants of which are prohibited from entering territory of the United States unless they belong to one of the exempted classes. They did not present any of the proofs required by the Act of Congress of February 5, 1917, to show that they belonged to one of the exempted classes. In the absence of such proof, the Collector of Customs was not only justified, but it was his duty under the law, to deny the right of the appellees the enter the territory of the United States.

The appellee, Dataram Valiram, attempted to show, by is own declaration, that he had been in the Philippine Islands before on several different occasions, covering a period of six or seven years, and that while here, on the former occasions, he was employed or engaged as a merchant; that when he left the Philippine Islands in 1917 or 1918, he served his relations with the people with whom he had been engaged (if his statement is true) as a merchant; that he was returning at the present time for the purpose of engaging again in business as a merchant. In other words, he was returning to the Philippine Islands to become a merchant.

The theory of the law (Act of Congress of February 5, 1917) is, that aliens who desire to enter the territory of the United States shall enter because they are and have been merchants in the country whence they came, and not because they desire to enter the territory of the United States in order to become merchants. Upon the theory of the appellees, all aliens belonging to the prohibited classes — Chinamen and Indians — might enter the territory of the United States.

Aliens, even of the merchant class, who belong to the prohibited class, must furnish the evidence required by law before they can enter the territory of the United States. The appellees not having furnished the evidence required by law, the department of customs was justified in denying their right to enter.

There being no abuse of power or discretion shown on the part of the department of customs, the judgment appealed from is hereby revoked, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the petitioners be returned to the custody of the Collector of Customs in order that the of deportation heretofore made by him may be carried into effect, with costs against the appellees. So ordered.

Araullo, Street, Avanceña and Villamor, JJ., concur.