Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > December 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 31953 December 16, 1929 - TEH HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

054 Phil 129:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 31953. December 16, 1929.]

TEH HUAN (alias YU SIONG), Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Respondent-Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Appellant.

J. W. Ferrier, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. WHEN WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD BE GRANTED. — Where in a habeas corpus proceeding on the part of a Chinese wife to land, it appears that the customs authorities permitted her husband to land, but denied such right to the wife without making any finding as to their marriage, and there is evidence tending to show that they were married in China and are now husband and wife and the parents of two children as a result of the marriage, the writ should be granted permitting the wife to land.

STATEMENT

October 22, 1927, the petitioner, Teh Huan (alias Yu Siong), and Tan Po Suan arrived at Manila and sought admission into this country, Teh Huan alleging that he was a resident merchant, and that Tan Po Suan was his wife. October 4, 1928, a special board of inquiry was appointed to hear the evidence at which "the testimony of the applicants and their witnesses was taken," after which the board rendered a decision denying them the right to land, from which this appeal was taken to the Insular Collector of Customs, who reversed the decision of the board with respect to Teh Huan, and permitted him to land as a former resident, and confirmed the board in so far as it denied the right of Tan Po Suan to enter. Upon the rendition of this decision, a writ of habeas corpus was presented by Teh Huan on behalf of his alleged wife, which writ was granted by the lower court, from which the Collector of Customs appealed and assigns the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The lower court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. In holding that the customs authorities committed an abuse of discretion in denying Tan Po Suan admission into the Philippine Islands.

"II. In permitting Tan Po Suan to enter the Philippine Islands as the legitimate wife of Teh Huan alias Yu Siong.

"III. In granting the writ of habeas corpus."


D E C I S I O N


JOHNS, J.:


As to Teh Huan, the decision of the board of special inquiry was reversed by the Insular Collector of Customs, and the only question involved on this appeal is whether or not his alleged wife, Tan Po Suan, should be permitted to land. At the hearing before the board, Tan Po Suan testified that she was 26 years of age; that she married Teh Huan in China about 10 years ago, by whom she had two children, who were then living with her mother in China; and that she was living at Estraude Street No. 7, Manila with her husband. Teh Huan testified that Tan Po Suan was his wife, and that he married her in China about 10 years ago, and Ñgo Tian testified that he was a merchant residing on T. Pinpin Street, and that he knew Tan Po Suan as the wife of Teh Huan, and that they were living at No. 7 Estraude Street, Manila. The evidence of Lucio Baltazar and Lorenzo Hernandez tends to show that they knew the husband, and that he was a merchant in Manila.

In its analysis of the evidence the board of special inquiry found that Teh Huan was not a merchant as he claims, and denied the right of either of them to land, but did not make any finding as to whether or not they were husband and wife. Apparently the board assumed that, if Teh Huan was not a merchant, neither of them was entitled to enter. As stated, the finding of the board as to Teh Huan was reversed by the Insular Collector of Customs, and he was permitted to land, and Tan Po Suan was denied the right to land, without any finding as to whether or not they were husband and wife. In other words, the customs authorities did not make any finding upon that vital and material point, and there is nothing in the record to dispute the testimony as to the alleged marriage, and for want of any finding on that point, there are no legal presumptions to overcome.

Section 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The following presumptions are satisfactory, if uncontradicted, but they are disputable, and may be contradicted by other evidence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"28. That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


The case of Chua Chiaco v. Collector of Customs (53 Phil., 31), on which the Attorney-General relies, decided by this court on March 21, 1929, is not in point, for the simple reason that the customs authorities did not make any finding upon the vital question of marriage. For want of such finding, there is nothing to overcome the evidence submitted by the petitioners as to the marriage.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, without costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30993 December 2, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO VIVAS

    054 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 31397 December 2, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIM QUINGSY

    054 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 31088 December 3, 1929 - MIGUEL J. OSSORIO v. JUAN POSADAS

    056 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. 29959 December 3, 1929 - AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA v. RAFAEL VILLANUEVA

    054 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 31320 December 3, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPO LARA E ILANO

    054 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 31883 December 3, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO CASTRO

    054 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 30587 December 4, 1929 - SABINA REYES, ET AL. v. E. C. WELLS, ET AL.

    054 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 31770 December 5, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONINO HERNANDEZ

    054 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 31686 December 14, 1929 - JAO YAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    054 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 31953 December 16, 1929 - TEH HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    054 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 30641 December 18, 1929 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. J. O. WAGNER, ET AL.

    054 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30874 December 26, 1929 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    054 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 30048 December 27, 1929 - LO BUN CHAY v. ALBINO PAULINO, ET AL.

    054 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 31155 December 27, 1929 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. SALVADOR BETIA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 31287 December 27, 1929 - ANNA HARTSKE v. FRED FRANKEL, ET AL.

    054 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 31338 December 27, 1929 - CECILIA ORTIZ, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO BALGOS

    054 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 31508 December 27, 1929 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

    054 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 31763 December 27, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. H. JANSSEN

    054 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 31768 December 27, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS P. PAYUMO

    054 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 30823 December 28, 1929 - ANGELO ANGELES, ET AL. v. ANATALIA LOZADA, ET AL.

    054 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 31316 December 28, 1929 - LIM CHU LAN v. LIM CHU KUN

    054 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. 31346 December 28, 1929 - PO SUN TUN v. W. S. PRICE, ET AL.

    054 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 31454 December 28, 1929 - ISIDRA GAAS, ET AL. v. PILAR FORTICH

    054 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 31905 December 28, 1929 - CHUA QUIP v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    054 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 31916 December 28, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO SUÑGA

    054 Phil 210