Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1935 > December 1935 Decisions > G.R. No. 44281 December 13, 1935 - AH YOUNG v. VICENTE ALDANESE

062 Phil 591:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 44281. December 13, 1935.]

AH YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VICENTE ALDANESE, in his capacity as Insular Collector of Customs, and EMILIO VELEZ, in his capacity as Collector of Customs of the Port of Davao, Respondents-Appellees.

Jose L. Palma Gil for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. ALIENS; DECISION OF IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES; FINDINGS OF FACT. — The board of special inquiry must give the particular facts upon which its conclusions are based, and those facts must appear in the record. (Sam Mow Tow v. Aldanese, 42 Phil., 217.)

2. ID.; FINALITY OF EXECUTIVE DECISION; ARBITRARY DISREGARD OF EVIDENCE. — When there is no valid reason given in the decision of the board of special inquiry, or appearing in the record, which would support the conclusion reached by it that an immigrant is not entitled to admission into this country, and, upon review of the record, it is found that from the testimony of four witnesses it is clearly inferred that such immigrant is entitled to admission, writ of habeas corpus will lie.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; — While the immigration authorities are not obliged to believe the testimony of witnesses for an immigrant seeking admission into this country, yet, they reject such testimony, they must give some reason therefor.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Davao, denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in behalf of Ah Fook, who claimed the right to enter this country as minor son of Ah Young, a Chinese merchant residing in Davao. A board of special inquiry, appointed by the Collector of Customs of Davao, held that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish the relationship between Ah Fook and his alleged father, and therefore denied the former admission into this country. Whereupon this petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the court below for the purpose of securing a review of the decision of the board of special inquiry, which was previously appealed to and confirmed by the respondent Insular Collector of Customs. The petition was denied; hence this appeal.

In denying the petition, the court below held that the board of special inquiry did not abuse its discretion in passing upon the right of Ah Fook to enter this country. To establish the relation of father and son alleged to exist between Ah Young and Ah Fook, oral evidence was presented, consisting of the testimony of the two and of two other witnesses named Chan Kee and Lim Men. From the testimony of these four witnesses it is clearly inferred that Ah Fook is the son of Ah Young. In passing upon this evidence, the board of special inquiry remarked in its decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It will be observed from his testimony that when he came back to the Philippines in 1915 the applicant was not yet born. In fact he was not in China when his alleged three sons were born. This board is not satisfied that the applicant is the son of Ah Young. The testimony of the witness introduced to establish the relationship between applicant and his alleged father is not satisfactory."cralaw virtua1aw library

This court has held that while it is true that immigration authorities are not obliged to believe the testimony of witnesses in cases like the present, yet, when they reject such testimony, they must give some reason therefor. They must give the particular facts upon which their conclusions are based, and those facts must appear in the record. (Sam Mow Tow v. Aldanese, 42 Phil., 217.) In the instant case, there is no valid reason given in the decision of the board of special inquiry, or appearing in the record, which supports the conclusion reached by the board Ah Fook is not the son of Ah Young. The mere fact that Ah Young was not in China when his three alleged sons were born, is not sufficient to impeach the testimony of the four witnesses who testified before the board, considering that there was evidence to show that Ah Young was married in China in 1914, and although he returned to the Philippine after his marriage, he again visited China in 1915, 1919 and 1921. Upon a review of the record in this case, we find that there is no evidence to support the decision of the board of special inquiry.

The order appealed from reversed, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Hull, Vickers, and Recto, 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-1935 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44750 December 3, 1935 - SERAFIN GAMBOA v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO

    062 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. 43178 December 4, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SWAME CLAUDETT SCOTT

    062 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 43137 December 5, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs JOSE TAYABA

    062 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 43761 December 6, 1935 - DOMINGO CACHO v. JOSE ABAD

    062 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 42557 December 7, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. LORENZO REODICA, ET AL.

    062 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 43053 December 9, 1935 - IN RE FERNANDO ARCE v. PHIL. NAT’L BANK

    062 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. 43913 December 9, 1935 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO.

    062 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 44476 December 9, 1935 - MARCELINA CASAS VIUDA DE RIOSA v. JUAN G. LESACA

    062 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 42933 December 10, 1935 - PAZ NABONG v. ELIGIO ALONSO

    062 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 44627 December 11, 1935 - FELIPE SALCEDO v. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ

    062 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 42574 December 12, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. NGAN TE

    062 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 44281 December 13, 1935 - AH YOUNG v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    062 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 41200 December 17, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CU UNJIENG

    061 Phil 906

  • G.R. No. 41768 December 17, 1935 - VIUDA E HIJOS DE PIO BARRETTO Y CIA. v. ALBO & SEVILLA

    062 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 43556 December 18, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. HONORATO ESPINA Y REAL

    062 Phil 607

  • G.R. Nos. 42128 & 42129 December 19, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. VICENTE CO ARQUIZA

    062 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 43043 December 19, 1935 - FELIX V. KATIPUNAN v. JULIO A. ANTIPORDA

    062 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 43314 December 19, 1935 - A. L. VELILLA v. JUAN POSADAS

    062 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 43475 December 20, 1935 - GREGORIO C. YARCIA v. PHIL. EDUCATION CO.

    062 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 42435 December 21, 1935 - FLORA CASTILLO v. MELECIO BOLAÑOS

    062 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 43290 December 21, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. AMBROSIO LINSAÑGAN

    062 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 43973 December 21, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PONCIANO CARBALLO

    062 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. 44112 December 21, 1935 - ELISA DE LA CRUZ v. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA & CO.

    062 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 41731 December 21, 1935 - MARGARITA ROXAS Y AYALA VIUDA DE SORIANO ET AL. v. JUAN POSADAS

    062 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 42454 December 21, 1935 - GEORGE CASTRO v. CONSUELO CARRATALA VIUDA DE VELOSO

    062 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 42510 December 21, 1935 - IN RE NATALIA AREVALO v. CARMEN ADRIANO

    062 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 42626 December 21, 1935 - EUDARDO MATUTE v. ANTONIO MATUTE Y AMASA

    062 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. 42779 December 21, 1935 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. (P. I.) v. BUENAVENTURA M. VELOSO

    062 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 43719 December 21, 1935 - AURELIO CECILIO v. JACINTO TOMACRUZ

    062 Phil 689