It appears from the record that on the 24th day of July, 1913, a complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, alleging that  the defendant and appellee,  Sia Lam Han, is  a  Chinese laborer within  the Philippine  Islands, without the certificate of residence required by Act No. 702 of the United States Philippine Commission,  and asked for his arrest, in order that the court might determine whether  he had a right to remain in  the Islands,  and that he be deported if he be  found  without legal right to remain.

The order of arrest was issued, the  respondent  was arrested, brought before the court and tried.  At the close of the trial the  Honorable A. S. Cross field, judge, found from the evidence that the defendant is the son of a merchant ; that he came to the Philippine Islands when he was 14 years  of age; that he was still a minor by several years when certificates of  registration were issued; that he is now a merchant and has been a merchant for the five years last past, being a partner in a business with a capital stock of from four to five thousand pesos, and entered a judgment dismissing  the complaint and discharging the respondent from custody, with costs de officio.

From  that judgment the Solicitor-General appealed  to this  court and alleged (a)  that the lower court erred in its finding of facts; and (b) that the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint and  discharging the respondent.

An examination  of the facts shows that the appellee was taken before the customs  officials and examined.  During that examination he testified that he was 27 years of age; that he was a merchant in the dry goods business; that he had about P2,000 invested in said business; that he was a Chinaman;  that he came to the Philippine Islands about four years before the date of the examination  (the examination was had on the 24th day of July, 1913) ; that he landed at Zamboanga; that he  came to Zamboanga from Sandakan.

During the  examination in the Court of First Instance, the appellee declared  again in his own behalf and stated that he was a merchant doing business in the city of Manila; that he came to the Philippine Islands about thirteen years before; that he landed at Zamboanga; that he was 14 years old when he came; that he was 27 years old at the time of the examination; that  his father was a merchant in China; that when he landed in the Philippine Islands he did not  present himself to the immigration  authorities; that he did not have the regular Chinese certificate  permitting him to land in the Philippine Islands.   He further stated that when he arrived in the Philippine Islands, the Spaniards were still governing the Islands.

Accepting the declaration of the appellee made before the Court of First Instance,  it clearly appears that he was in the  Philippine Islands during  the  years  within which Chinese laborers were  required to register under Act  No. 702.  There is no attempt on his part to show that he was a merchant  during that period.   One of the reasons why he was permitted to remain in  the Philippine  Islands by the lower court  was the  fact that he was  the son  of a merchant.  That fact may or may not be true, but inasmuch as his father was not a merchant in the Philippine  Islands, the fact  cannot avail the  appellee or give him a right to remain  here.  Inasmuch  as the  record  shows that  the appellee  was in  the Philippine Islands during  the period within which he was required by law to register under Act No. 702,  and in view of the fact  that  he has failed to show that he was a merchant during  that period, he has failed to show  any  right to remain  in the Philippine  Islands. (U. S. vs. Yu  Wa, 28 Phil. Rep., 1.)   It is not incumbent upon  the Government to prove  affirmatively that  the  appellee in the present case was  a laborer  and  should have registered under the Act.  The burden is  by law expressly placed upon  the  alien  to  demonstrate that  he  was  not within the class which was required by the Act to register. The law provides  that every Chinese person found without the required certificate in  the Philippine Islands, after the expiration of  the time limited by law for  registration, shall be  presumed, in the absence  of  satisfactory proof to the contrary, to be a Chinese  laborer and shall be subject to deportation as  provided for by Act No. 702.  The mere fact that he  becomes a merchant after the expiration of the period within which the law required him to register, is not sufficient.  The  fact which determines whether or not he shall be deported is whether or not he obtained a certificate during  the period required by  law.  (U. S. vs. Lim Co, 12  Phil. Rep., 703.)   It is the status which he enjoyed during the period for  registration which determines his right to remain.  If he was a laborer during that period, and failed to register, the fact  that he is  a merchant now will not  defeat his deportation.   (Juan Co vs. Rafferty, 14 Phil. Rep., 235.)  The appellee made  no effort, in  the present case, to show that he was a merchant during the period required for registration.  He clearly  admits that he was not.  He  claimed that  he came to the Philippine Islands during the Spanish regime and that  he had been a merchant only during the past three or  four years.

In our opinion the judgment of the lower court should be and is  hereby reversed, and it is hereby ordered  that  a judgment be entered directing that the cause be remanded to the court below, with direction that a judgment be entered ordering the appellee deported from the Philippine Islands. And without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

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

MORELAND, J., concurring:

I agree with this decision except that if the question were an open one I would doubt the right of the Government to appeal in cases of  this character.