G.R. No. L-11267 - AUGUST 1916 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-11267August 31, 1916 See Chiat, et al vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. L-11562August 31, 1916 United States vs. Simon Lazaro, et al. G.R. No. L-11772August 31, 1916 United States vs. Gan Lian Po G.R. No. L-10868August 28, 1916 Leocadio Joaquin vs. O. Mitsumine G.R. No. L-11071August 26, 1916 S. Chase de Krafft vs. Apolinar Velez G.R. No. L-11505August 25, 1916 United States vs. Sataoa Bungaoil G.R. No. L-11737August 25, 1916 United States vs. Marcelo Jose, et al. G.R. No. L-11739August 25, 1916 Cesar Mercader vs. Adolph Wislizenus G.R. No. L-11986August 25, 1916 Manuel G. Oria vs. Richard Campbell, et al. G.R. No. L-11401August 23, 1916 United States vs. Gregorio Cristobal, et al. G.R. No. L-11427August 23, 1916 Vy Lion Lin vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. L-12096August 22, 1916 Emilio de Castro vs. Fernando Salas, et al. G.R. No. L-10988August 19, 1916 Roque Samson vs. Braulio Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-11448August 19, 1916 United States vs. Licerio Casten G.R. No. L-11653August 19, 1916 United States vs. Genoveva Aquino, et al. G.R. No. L-10374August 18, 1916 Pio Mercado vs. Maria Tan-Lingco G.R. No. L-10891August 18, 1916 United States vs. Eugenio Kilayko, et al. G.R. No. L-11711August 18, 1916 Manuel Cembrano Chan Guanco vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. L-11480August 17, 1916 United States vs. Roberto Pangilion G.R. No. L-10100August 15, 1916 Galo Abrenica vs. Manuel Gonda, et al. G.R. No. L-11165August 15, 1916 United States vs. Manuel B. Asensi G.R. No. L-11338August 15, 1916 United States vs. Tan Oco G.R. No. L-11162August 12, 1916 United States vs. F. Luling G.R. No. L-11530August 12, 1916 United States vs. Juan Pons G.R. No. L-11565August 11, 1916 United States vs. Marcelo Jose, et al. G.R. No. L-10712August 10, 1916 Anselmo Ferrazzini vs. Carlos Gsell G.R. No. L-11566August 10, 1916 United States vs. Marcelo Jose, et al. G.R. No. L-10578August 9, 1916 Mauricia Sotto vs. George R. Harvey G.R. No. L-9957August 8, 1916 Perfecto de la Vega, et al vs. Tomas Ballilos G.R. No. L-11477August 8, 1916 United States vs. Toribio Andaya G.R. No. L-11507August 8, 1916 United States vs. Severo delos Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-11510August 8, 1916 United States vs. Bahatan, et al. G.R. No. L-11050August 7, 1916 United States vs. Lim Soon G.R. No. L-11159August 7, 1916 United States vs. Manuel B. Asensi G.R. No. L-11420August 7, 1916 United States vs. Wan Yang, et al. G.R. Nos. L-10114 and 10137August 3, 1916 Melecio Montinola vs. Jose G. Montalvo, et al. G.R. No. L-8452August 2, 1916 Dean C. Worcester vs. Martin Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. L-11389August 2, 1916 United States vs. Juan Sellano, et al. G.R. No. L-11425August 2, 1916 United States vs. Ngan Ping G.R. No. L-9366August 1, 1916 Yap Tico & Co. vs. H. C. Anderson, et al. G.R. No. L-10010August 1, 1916 Chu Jan vs. Lucio Bernas G.R. No. L-11371August 1, 1916 United States vs. Cecilia Memoracion, et al. G.R. No. L-11497August 1, 1916 United States vs. Lorenzo Blanza, et al. G.R. No. L-11597August 1, 1916 United States vs. Dario Padilla G.R. No. L-11634August 1, 1916 United States vs. Barambangan, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. See Chiat, et al vs. Insular Collector of Customs United States vs. Simon Lazaro, et al. United States vs. Gan Lian Po Leocadio Joaquin vs. O. Mitsumine S. Chase de Krafft vs. Apolinar Velez United States vs. Sataoa Bungaoil United States vs. Marcelo Jose, et al. Cesar Mercader vs. Adolph Wislizenus Manuel G. Oria vs. Richard Campbell, et al. United States vs. Gregorio Cristobal, et al. Vy Lion Lin vs. Insular Collector of Customs Emilio de Castro vs. Fernando Salas, et al. Roque Samson vs. Braulio Garcia, et al. United States vs. Licerio Casten United States vs. Genoveva Aquino, et al. Pio Mercado vs. Maria Tan-Lingco United States vs. Eugenio Kilayko, et al. Manuel Cembrano Chan Guanco vs. Insular Collector of Customs United States vs. Roberto Pangilion Galo Abrenica vs. Manuel Gonda, et al. United States vs. Manuel B. Asensi United States vs. Tan Oco United States vs. F. Luling United States vs. Juan Pons United States vs. Marcelo Jose, et al. Anselmo Ferrazzini vs. Carlos Gsell United States vs. Marcelo Jose, et al. Mauricia Sotto vs. George R. Harvey Perfecto de la Vega, et al vs. Tomas Ballilos United States vs. Toribio Andaya United States vs. Severo delos Reyes, et al. United States vs. Bahatan, et al. United States vs. Lim Soon United States vs. Manuel B. Asensi United States vs. Wan Yang, et al. Melecio Montinola vs. Jose G. Montalvo, et al. Dean C. Worcester vs. Martin Ocampo, et al. United States vs. Juan Sellano, et al. United States vs. Ngan Ping Yap Tico & Co. vs. H. C. Anderson, et al. Chu Jan vs. Lucio Bernas United States vs. Cecilia Memoracion, et al. United States vs. Lorenzo Blanza, et al. United States vs. Dario Padilla United States vs. Barambangan, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-11267            August 31, 1916

SEE CHIAT and SEE HUAN,petitioners-appellants,
vs.
THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,respondent-appellee.

Beaumont and Tenney for appellants.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

JOHNSON,J.:

The question presented by this appeal is whether or not the Insular Collector of Customs abused his power, discretion, and authority in refusing the appellants the right to enter the Philippine Islands.

The record shows that the appellants arrived at the port of Manila on the steamshipLinanon the 26th of April, 1915, and requested permission to enter the Philippine Islands. They alleged that they were citizens of the Philippine Islands; that their mother was a Filipina and that their father was a Chinaman. They admitted that they had been born in China and had been in the Philippine Islands before. Several witnesses appeared in their behalf. Their alleged mother appeared and swore that she had gone to China about twenty-eight or thirty years ago and had lived there with a Chinaman by the name of See Lo; that the two appellants were her children and that See Lo was their father.

An examination of the testimony shows some very important conflicts; for example, each of the appellants swears that they lived in their own house and that said house hadthreerooms; while the mother testified that they lived in a rented house withtworooms. See Chiat swore that he was twenty-two years of age. See Huan that he was twenty-four years of age. It does not seem probable, if the appellants are the persons whom they claim to be, that they could have lived there with their mother, as they allege, during their entire life, without knowing the number of rooms which the house contained in which they lived. It does not seem probable either that the mother could have been mistaken upon that question, providing they had lived together as they allege. That conflict in this testimony, together with others, evidently caused the board of special inquiry to disbelieve their testimony. The board of special inquiry in its decision said: "The board does not believe their testimony." The board believed that they were full-blooded Chinamen and laborers, coming to the Philippine Islands without the required certificates, and refused them the right to land.

From that decision an appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs who found that the appellants were not citizens of the Philippine Islands, but were Chinese persons not entitled by law to admission into the Philippine Islands.

Later a petition for the writ ofhabeas corpuswas presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, and after hearing the respective parties the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, judge, in a carefully prepared opinion reached the conclusion that the Collector of Customs had not abused the power or discretion which the law conferred upon him and denied the writ ofhabeas corpus, and ordered the appellants returned to the custody of the Collector of Customs for deportation.

From that judgment the appellants appealed to this court and made the following assignments of error:

With reference to the first assignment of error above noted, we have held in several cases that it was not necessary for the Collector of Customs, in an appeal from a decision of the board of special inquiry, to see and hear the witnesses, even though the board found from a personal examination of the alien that he belonged to the class of aliens who were not permitted to enter territory of the United States without the "section six certificate." (Que Quay vs. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 128; Go Paw vs. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 278; Valdezco Sy Chiok vs. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 406; See also Co Pian vs. Collector of Customs, 34 Phil. Rep., 310; Obera vs. Collector of Customs, R. G. No. 11087 [decided Jan. 8, 1916, not published.])

The rule is not only well established here in this jurisdiction, but also in the United States, in cases like the present, that where a board of special inquiry refuses a Chinaman the right to enter territory of the United States, even on the personal appearance, racial characteristics, language, dress, and manner of said alien, it is not necessary for the Collector of Customs, in his review of the proceedings of said board on appeal, to have before him the person of the alien nor to hear the witnesses again who testified before said board of special inquiry. The Collector of Customs is authorized to review the evidence and to pass upon its sufficiency without again hearing or seeing the witnesses.

With reference to the second assignment of error above-noted, an examination of the record shows that the alleged mother of the appellants, in her examination before the board of special inquiry, had some difficulty in understanding Tagalog. She stated, "I forgot Tagalog; I was in China so long." In the Court of First Instance, according to the finding of Judge Del Rosario, she spoke Tagalog very fluently and perfectly. Taking into consideration her own statement before the board of special inquiry with reference to her ability to speak Tagalog, in relation with the fluent manner in which she spoke it before the Court of First Instance, Judge Del Rosario did not believe that she had been in China for a period of 30 years. Judge Del Rosario believed that during a period of 30 years, without having an opportunity to speak her native tongue, she would have forgotten it more or less. That conclusion of the judge was in accordance with her own conclusion before the board of special inquiry. Evidently Judge Del Rosario referred to that fact, as he referred to other facts, simply for the purpose of indicating the reason why he did not believe her statements. Judge Del Rosario believed that she had only gone to China for the purpose of learning to speak Chinese, in order that she might falsely represent that she was the mother of the appellants. It was simply Judge Del Rosario's appreciation of the facts which influenced his conclusion.

The third and fourth assignments of error may be discussed together. The board of special inquiry found as a fact that the plaintiffs did not resemble, in their facial appearance, their alleged mother; that they were not Filipino mestizos, but that they were full-blooded Chinamen. Alien Chinese seeking admission into territory of the United States are themselves exhibits. The board of special inquiry has a right to examine them and to determine from their person appearance whether they are Chinamen or not. (Leong Guen vs. Collector of Customs, 31 Phil. Rep., 417; Go Paw vs. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 278.)

With reference to the fifth assignment of error, that question has been decided against the contention of the appellants in so many cases that we will not now discuss it again. (Chieng Ah Sui vs. Collector of Customs, 22 Phil. Rep., 361; 239 U. S., 139; Tin Lio vs. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil. Re., 32; Que Quay vs. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 128.)

In the case ofex parteMomo Tomimatsu(232 Fed. Rep., 376), it was held that a clerk in the immigration service may serve on the board of special inquiry.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion and so hold that there was no abuse of authority on the part of the department of customs. The decision of the Court of First Instance is therefore hereby affirmed with costs and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the appellants be returned to the Collector of Customs, in order that the judgment heretofore dictated by him may be enforced. So ordered.

Torres, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,concur.

Separate Opinions

MORELAND,J.,concurring:

I am in entire accord with this decision. I think, however, that Courts of First Instance should not enter upon the facts of a given case without it being first established, to their satisfaction, that the board of special inquiry abused its authority or violated the law in such a manner as to permit a review.