On the 26th of February, 1914, a complaint was presented in the  Court  of  First Instance  of  the city of  Manila, charging the defendant with being a laborer in the Philippine Islands without the laborer's certificate  provided for by section 4 of Act No. 702.

Upon the complaint the  defendant was duly arrested and brought before the court for trial.  After hearing  the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, found as a fact that the defendant came to the  Philippine Islands in 1899;  that he was a laborer until about 1912 or 1913,  when he became a merchant.   Under these facts  the lower court made the following observations:  "While the respondent would have been subject to deportation because of failure to obtain  his certificate  at any time before his becoming a  merchant, I am of the opinion that, having been allowed to remain in the Islands for a long period of time without the certificate and that having become a merchant, he is relieved from the necessity of having such certificate as a laborer; and being legally  in  the Philippine Islands  and having become a member of one of the exempt classes, he is not subject to deportation."

With that  conclusion the lower court ordered  the  defendant discharged from custody, with costs de officio. From that judgment  the plaintiff appealed to  this court.

From an examination of the record, the following facts appear to be proven and not denied:

First. That the  defendant  is a Chinaman;  that he was born  in Fu  Kien; that he  is a  subject  of  the Chinese Republic;  that he  came to the Philippine  Islands in 1899 from  China.

Second.  That he was a  laborer until  the year 1912 or 1913.

Third. That he  was  in  the  city of Manila during the years 1903 and 1904; in fact, he  continued  to  reside in Manila, from  the time of his arrival, up to and  including the time of the commencement of the present proceeding.

Fourth.  That during the years  1902, 1903, and 1904, he was a laborer; that he learned in the year  1905  that  it was necessary for him to secure  a certificate; that he did not secure the certificate, for the reason that he was informed that the time within  which he could secure  it had closed.

Fifth. That during all the time that he  has been in the Philippine Islands he never obtained a personal cedula.

From the  foregoing  facts it clearly  appears  that the defendant was in the Philippine Islands as a laborer during the period within which he was required to register under Act No.  702  and  that  he failed  to register during  that period, or during  any other  period.  We have decided in numerous  cases that the necessity of  registration  under Act No. 702 depended upon the status of the Chinese alien during the time within which Chinese laborers are required to register under  Act No. 702.  If they  are  required to register during that period, and fail, their status thereafter could not  relieve them from  the necessity  of  having a laborer's certificate.   (U. S.  vs. Sia Lam Han, 29 Phil. Rep., 159; U. S. vs. Yu Wa, 28 Phil. Rep., 1; U. S. vs. Tan Chuy Ho, p. 383 ante.)

The enforcement  of  the  foregoing rule may work  a hardship.   The courts,  however, are  not  responsible for statutory  law.  It is the duty of  the courts to enforce the law as they find it.

In  view of all of the foregoing, we are of  the opinion that the judgment of the lower court must be revoked, and the defendant deported  from the Philippine Islands, and without any finding as to costs, it is  so ordered.

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