This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus presented by Benito Munoz against the Collector of Customs.

The facts are stipulated and are as follows: 

"1. That one Antonio Munoz Ting Jian Co was born in China about seventy-five years ago; that he came  to  the Philippines about sixty years ago, and during his minority; that he has lived in the Philippine Islands continuously for the past forty-seven years, and that if  he has been  absent at all during any part of the whole period of  his residence in said Islands, it has only  been for temporary purposes and always with the  intention,  duly carried out in each instance, of returning shortly to his home in the Philippine Islands; that when the said  Antonio Munoz first came to the Philippine  Islands, he  obtained from the Spanish Government the required license  or permission  to reside  in the said Islands;

"2. That about fifty years ago the said Antonio Munoz Ting Jian Co  was converted  to the Roman Catholic faith. and about the  same time he  lawfully married a  native woman by whom he  has had  issue;

"3. That he  established his  domicile in Camalig,  Province of Albay with the intention of residing there; that he has in the course of his residence acquired real and other property; lived in a house  of his own, and has been a self-supporting merchant,  owning  a retail store and having various other investments;

"4. That Antonio  Munoz Ting Jian Co never registered in any public registry,  except it be in this, that in the year 1903 or  1904, he did register  under Act No. 702, of the Philippine  Commission and now holds  certificate of residence 348/29537, issued in  Albay; that in public  documents of various  kinds he  has  uniformly described himself as a resident of the Philippine Islands;

"5. That after the death of the first wife of the said Antonio Munoz  Ting Jian  Co he was once more lawfully married, his second  wife being one Antonia Nacional, a native  of the Philippine Islands; that as a result of this second marriage there was born to the said Antonio Munoz Ting Jian Co, on the 11th day  of January, 1880, in the town of Camalig, Province of Albay, one  Benito Munoz, the petitioner herein;

"6. That said Benito Munoz lived  in the  Philippine Islands with his father until he attained the  age  of eleven years, when  he departed for China, and there  remained until January 16, 1911, when he returned  to the Philippine Islands in the  steamer  Taisang,  and sought admission thereto as a native and citizen thereof;

"7. That before  the  immigration  officers who investigated his right of entry he presented satisfactory proof that he would  have returned sooner to the Philippine Islands had  it not been for certain financial difficulties, and that he had never intended to expatriate himself and had never taken any active steps to that end;

"8. That the immigration officers denied the petitioner the right to  enter the Philippine Islands solely on the theory that he is an  alien of Chinese race  who  presents none of the required  statutory proof  that he is a member of the exempt class of Chinese persons;

"9. That petitioner  has now exhausted all administrative remedies available to him  in  his efforts to be declared  a citizen and allowed to enter the Philippine Islands as such;

"10. That if, under the facts above set forth, Benito Munoz is, as  a matter of  law, a citizen of the Philippine Islands, and if a  decision  of the board of special  inquiry, based on such facts, and  correctly  determining the issue of fact, may be reviewed by this court, on the theory  that there has been an erroneous application of law to the facts by the board, then, upon a determination  by this court that there has been such erroneous finding as  to  the law in the present case, the  decision of the court should be rendered in favor of the petitioner; otherwise not."

This court has already held in the case of United States vs. Go Siaco (12 Phil. Rep., 490) that a male person born in the Philippine Islands, of a Filipino mother and a Chinese father, said father being domiciled  with his permanent home in the Philippine Islands and subject to the jurisdiction  of the government thereof, is, prima facie, a citizen of the Philippine Islands; and the fact that he, at the age of 14, went to China and  remained there until 1897 when he returned to the Islands where he has since continuously resided, was not sufficient in itself to change his status as a citizen of the Philippine  Islands.

In the case before us the applicant was born in the Philippine Islands  of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother in the  year 1880.  The father lived continuously  in  the Islands for about sixty years, and acquired  considerable real  and  personal property therein.  The  applicant lived here  until 11 years of age, when he was sent  to  China, where he remained until January, 1911.   On this date he returned to the Islands asserting that he was a native  and citizen thereof, and with the bona fide intention of making this his permanent home and country, but was denied entry "solely  on the theory that  he  is an alien  of Chinese  race who present none of the required  statutory proof that he is a  member of the exempt class of Chinese persons."

These considerations, taken in  connection  with paragraph 7 of the stipulation  of facts in which it is admitted "that before the  immigration officers who investigated his right of  entry  he presented  satisfactory  proof that  he would have returned sooner to the Philippine Islands had it not been for certain financial  difficulties, and that  he never intended to expatriate himself and had never taken active steps to that end.' bring this case clearly within  the decision in the case of Go  Siaco, above mentioned.

This ruling is  not at variance with the  recent case of Lorenzo vs. Collector of Customs (15 Phil. Rep., 559).   In that case it appeared that:

"In the  present case the applicant left  the Philippine Islands when he was about 15 years  of age and  remained in China until he was 34 years of age. He says himself that  he had no intention  of returning  to  the Philippine Islands until the year before he did. return.  His mother and his  brother  say that he  married  a wife  in  China. *   *  *  The applicant says that he owned and operated a  farm in  China; that he was a subject of  the  Chinese Empire  *   *  *.  The applicant testified  that he  never had any intention of returning to the Philippine Islands until last year."

Nor is the decision in conflict with the rules adopted by the Department of State of the United  States  Government with reference to the loss of citizenship by  continued residence abroad.  This rule is to the effect that  a continued residence abroad  for three years,  after the  attainment of majority, produces a loss of citizenship, unless  it is clearly proved  that the animus revertendi existed.   (Van Dyne on Citizenship, pp. 276,  277; In re Bosque, 1 Phil. Rep., 88.)

In the case before  us the intention to return  is admitted, as is also the fact that the return was prevented by  circumstances over which the applicant had no control.   Under such conditions citizenship is not lost where the  stay abroad is  not prolonged beyond that shown in the case'at bar, and when there  is, in fact, a bona fide return  to the native land with the honest intention to make it his permanent home and country.

The writ is granted and  the applicant ordered discharged from custody.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson,  Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.