The record shows that on or about the 15th day of January, 1913, a warrant of arrest was issued for the defendant, upon which he was duly arrested and brought before  the court, for the purpose of investigating the question of his right to remain in the Philippine Islands.  Upon investigation the defendant admitted that  he was a Chinaman and that he came to the Philippine Islands on an American boat five or six years before and because of sickness was discharged by the captain and sent to  the marine hospital at Cavite, where he was later cured and after leaving the hospital remained in the Philippine Islands.  The defendant further showed that on the 11th  day of April, 1894, he had been issued "a certificate of residence" by 0. M. Welburn, collector of internal revenue of the first district of California.  Said certificate is, in part, as follows:

"This is to certify that Yee Chung, a Chinese laborer, now residing  at Santa Barbara, California, has made application No. S91,  to me for a certificate of residence, under  the provisions of the Act of Congress approved May 5th, 1892, and I certify that it  appears from the affidavits of witnesses submitted  with said application, that the said Yee  Chung  was within the limits  of the United States at the time of the passage of said  Act and  was then residing at Santa Barbara, and  that he  was at that time lawfully entitled to remain in the United  States, etc., etc."

No proof was presented except the declaration of the defendant and said certificate.  Upon these facts the case was submitted to the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, judge, who found that the defendant had a right to remain in the Philippine Islands, by virtue of said  certificate and refused to order him deported.  From that decision the plaintiff appealed to this court.  The Solicitor-General in his brief presented to this court says:

"The only issue raised by this appeal would appear to be whether a certificate of residence issued to a Chinese laborer in the United States, under the provisions of the Act of Congress of May 5, 1892, can take the place of the certificate of residence required by Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission."

With reference to said certificate of residence, it may be said that it was sufficient to permit the defendant not only to remain within the territory of the United States  but to travel into any part of said territory.  The precise question presented here seems never to have been presented to the courts before, at least, no decisions have been called to our attention and we have been unable  to find any.  The question, therefore, is one of first impression.  After a careful consideration of the same, we are led to  the conclusion that said certificate being sufficient to permit the defendant to remain and reside within the territory of the United States and to pass  from  one part of  the same to another without let or hindrance, it is also sufficient to permit him to enter and remain within  the territory of the Philippine Islands, which is  territory  of the United States, without the necessity  of having the certificate required under Act No. 702.  With this conclusion, we are of the opinion and so hold that the judgment of the  lower court must be and is hereby affirmed, with costs.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J.,  Torres, Carson, Moreland,  Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.