Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4454:g-r-no-12690-september-27,-1917-united-states-v-lim-bin-br-br-036-phil-924&catid=318&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:54:10+00:00

Document:
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIM BIN (alias) FERMIN V. C. BIO GUAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Delgado & Delgado for Appellant.
1. CHINESE EXECUTION AND DEPORTATION; CHILD BORN IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF CHINESE PARENTS; CITIZENSHIP. — Held: Under the facts given in the decision, that, following the decisions in the cases of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. S., 649); United States v. Ong Tianse (29 Phil. Rep., 332); United States v. Tan Chuy Ho (31 Phil. Rep., 383); and United States v. Ang (36 Phil. Rep., 858), a child born of Chinese parents in the Philippine Islands is a citizen thereof, and, consequently, cannot be deported for his failure to register, even though he be a laborer, under Act No. 702, by virtue of having been born in the Philippine Islands; and electing said territory as his place of residence he is a citizen thereof and cannot be deported by virtue of said Act No. 702.
2. CITIZENSHIP; RULES DETERMINING PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. — The general rules and principles governing the determination of Philippine citizenship are set out in the decision.
3. ID.; CHINESE DESCENT. — A child born of Chinese parents in 1882 in the Philippines is a citizen of the Philippine Islands. Consequently, he does not come within the purview of Act No. 702 relating to the registration of Chinese laborers and can not be deported from the Philippine Islands.
The only question presented by this appeal is whether the son of Chinese parents, who was born in the Philippine Islands in the year 1882, and who has lived continuously therein since 1898, can be deported, as a Chinese laborer, for having failed to register under the provisions of Act No. 702.
The undisputed facts of the record show; that the appellant was born in the city of Manila in the month of July, 1882; that his father and mother were Chinese; that he, together with his parents, went to China when he was five or six years of age; that he returned to Manila in the year 1898; that he returned to Manila for the purpose of making the Philippine Islands his home; that he has continued to live in the city of Manila since his return; that having been born in the Philippine Islands he considered that he was a citizen thereof.
The Government presented no proof to contradict the foregoing facts; and the Attorney-General in this court renounced his right to present a brief. He renounced his right to present arguments in support of the contention of the Government.
When the appellant returned to the Philippine Islands in 1898, he was a minor and was still a minor on the 27th day of March, 1903, when Act No. 702 was adopted. Furthermore, he was yet a minor at the termination of the year within which Chinese aliens were required to register under the provisions of said Act. He had established his residence in the Philippine Islands on the 11th day of April, 1899, when, by virtue of the Treaty of Paris, the Philippine archipelago became territory of the Government of the United States. He was less than seventeen years of age when the Treaty of Paris was concluded. At the termination of the period within which he was required to register under Act No. 702 he was less than twenty-one years of age. Under the laws in force at that time he did not reach his majority until the month of July, 1905.
Having reached the conclusion that the appellant was not required, under the provisions of said Act No. 702, to register in order to remain in the Philippine Islands, he cannot be deported for his failure so to do.
Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is hereby revoked; the complaint presented against the defendant is hereby dismissed; and it is hereby ordered and decreed that he be set at liberty, and without any finding as to costs. So ordered.
I concur with the disposition of this case.
I agree in substance with the decision of the court. I can, however, see how the facts permit of a different line of reasoning leading to the same conclusion. I prefer an unequivocal ruling as to the status of children born of Chinese parents in the Philippines.
If a citizen of the Philippine Islands, obviously Lim Bin does not come within the purview of Act No. 702 relating to the registration of Chinese laborers and cannot therefore be deported from the Philippine Islands.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.