From the record  it appears  that Ang Kah Lian, on the 6th  day of January 1911,  arrived at the  port  of Manila on  the  steamship  Yingchow and requested permission to enter the Philippine Islands.  He admitted that h a Chinese  person of the age  of 37 years.  He  alleged that he  was a resident Chinese merchant  of the Philippine  Islands.   He admitted that had  left the Islands in the year 1907,  He alleged that  he was a member of a  mercantile firm with an interest of  P15,000 at the time he left th Islands in the year 1907.  He admitted that before he left Manila  in  19 withdrew P5,000 from said business. It is admitted that the business in w Ang Kah Lian was a partner went into bankruptcy about a year before his return.   (January 6, 1911.)  It is not  denied that the records of the o the Collector of Customs  show that on  or  about the 7th of  February, 1905,  the  Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands had indorsed A Kah Lian as a resident Chinese merchant  of the Philippine  Islands,  doing business at 139 Calle  Nueva,  in the city of Manila.  The records of  th office of the Collector of Customs also show that Ang Kah Lian returned the  Philippine  Islands and was admitted  as a resident Chinese merchant or about the 3d of October, 1907.   The  records of the  office of the Collector of Customs further  show that after an investigation, a merchants certificate  had  been issued  to Ang Kah Lian  on  January 22, 1907, and that at that time he was a partner  in an importation of silk and dry-goo business, at 139 Calle  Nueva, in  the city of Manila, under the firm  name Ang Ban-Ka, the  capital of which was P85,000, and that the interest of Ang Kah  Lian in said business was P15,000.

Upon the foregoing  facts the board  of  special  inquiry denied  Ang Kah Lian the  right to enter the Philippine Islands  as a resident Chinese me upon the  ground that the mercantile business  in which he had been engage did not exist at the time of  his return.

From that decision of the board  of special inquiry,  an appeal  was take to the Collector  of  Customs, where the same was affirmed.

Later the applicant presented  a petition for the  writ of habeas  corpus the  Court of First Instance  of  the city of Manila.  After a due consideration of the facts,  the Honorable A. S.  Crossfield,  judge,  fo that the petitioner was  entitled to enter the Philippine  Islands as a r Chinese merchant and so ordered.

From that decision  of the Court  of First Instance  the Attorney-General appealed to this court.

The principal ground  of the appellant is that the lower court failed to that there had been an abuse of authority on the part of the Collector of Customs.   The contention of the appellant is that courts have no author to take jurisdiction of a case like the present, without first finding th executive department  of  the  Government had abused  the authority conferred upon  it by law.  This contention  of the appellant is sustained numerous authorities  (Roa vs. The Collector of Customs, p. 315, U. S. vs. Go-Siaco, 12 Phil. Rep., 490; Munoz vs. The Collector of 20 Phil.  Rep., 494.)

It  is  admitted  that  Ang Kah  Lian was a merchant  at the time he left the Philippine Islands in the early part of the,year 1907  and that he ha been a resident  Chinese merchant  for some years theretofore.  It  is also admitted that some months prior to his return the mercantile business in he was  interested became  bankrupt.  It is not denied  that he had a  right to  return  to the Philippine Islands  had his business not become bankrupt is not denied that he left the Philippine Islands in 1907 and that he left the intention of returning.  The  record shows that  he had some  other interests in the Philippine Islands besides  his interest' in said firm. a  resident Chinese merchant of the Philippine Islands for more than a ye prior to his departure in 1907, it is admitted that he had a right to return provided his business still existed. No decision has been called to our and it is  believed that none  exists holding that the mere fact that the business of a  resident Chinese merchant has failed during his temporary absence from territory of the United States, would have  the  effect of depriving  him of his right  to  reenter. Under the Act of Congress o November 3, 1893, a domiciled merchant in territory of the United States show that fact by parol testimony.  He was not required, on his return to territory of the  United States, to present any form of certificate.  How the Collector of  Customs of the Philippine Islands, in the Chinese Immigration Circular No. 186, as amended  by  Chinese Immigration  Circular No.  224, provided in  paragraph No.  42,  that Chinese  merchants residing within Philippine Islands, who desire to  go abroad temporarily,  may  secure an indorsement to the  effect  that  they are Chinese  resident merchants, b leaving.   This indorsement is for the purpose of facilitating their return paragraph No. 42 further provides that said merchants may return only, notwithstanding the indorsement, when they still retain the mercantile in owned  by them at the time  of their departure.  The  Acts of  Congress have  been  searched in vain  to find any  authority  for this  restriction The Collector of  Customs has  authority  under the  law to make regulation for the  due administration of the immigration  laws.  But he may not impose restrictions not based upon the law.  If a resident Chinese merchandise may leave the territory of the United States and return thereto under the the administrative department of the Government can not make  a regulation prohibiting him.   This, of course, presupposes that the professional status the person has not changed from the time of his leaving until the time of return.  The certificate which a  resident Chinese merchant may secure be leaving the territory of the United States  is only obtained for the purpose facilitating his  entrance  upon his  return.  If he was  a merchant when went out, and there is no proof that his professional status has been changed, the presumption is that  his professional status has  continued. The  mere fact that the  business of a professional merchant has gone in bankruptcy does not,  of itself, change the professional status of such p He may, by reason of business reverses, be temporarily not engaged in his actual profession; but certainly it  can not be  contended that bankruptcy itself would make a  merchant a laborer. We are of the opinion that if resident Chinese is found to be a merchant when he leaves the territory o United States, that  he has a right to return, provided he returns within prescribed time, unless there is some  proof showing that  he has changed professional status of a merchant to that of a laborer.

It is our opinion that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres,  Mapa, and Carson, JJ., concur.