Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > March 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 40561 March 17, 1934 - LEE CHIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

059 Phil 730:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 40561. March 17, 1934.]

LEE CHIU, in representation of Lee Yit, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Respondent-Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellant.

A. Hidalgo Rizal for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ALIENS; IMMIGRATION; DISCRETION OF THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. — The customs authorities are not bound to accept as satisfactory and true, in all cases, the statements made before them by an immigrant (Jao Igco v. Morgan Shuster, 10 Phil., 448; Chattamal v. Collector of Customs, 42 Phil., 916).

2. ID.; ID. — There is nothing of record to show that the customs authorities have abused their discretion and authority, as imputed to them, in denying L. Y.’s right to land at this port in order to reside with the complainant in the Philippine Islands.


D E C I S I O N


DIAZ, J.:


Lee Yit, claiming to be one of the eight children of the petitioner-appellee, who is a Chinese merchant of long residence in this country, arrived at the port of Manila from China on August, 7, 1933, and requested permission to land in order to live with his aforesaid father. The board of special inquiry of the Bureau of Customs, after due investigation wherein the complainant and said Lee Yit were afforded the necessary opportunity to prove the latter’s right to enter the Philippines, denied his petition on the following three grounds, to wit: (1) That the petitioner failed to identify his alleged son Lee Yit upon the latter’s arrival at the pier where the ship, which brought him to this port, docked; (2) that Lee Yit failed to identify one of his alleged brothers through his photograph; and (3) that both father and son memorized all that they stated at the investigation.

For one reason or another, the petitioner at his instance, was granted a rehearing in order to give him an opportunity to present additional evidence consisting of a medical certificate to the effect that he was suffering from defective eyesight. In spite of this new evidence, the board, this time composed of new members, again denied Lee Yit’s petition, whereupon his father instituted these habeas corpus proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that in denying his petition, the two boards of special inquiry as well as the herein respondent abused their authority and discretion. After due hearing, the aforesaid court granted the petitioner the remedy prayed for by him and, the respondent, not being satisfied with the decision thus rendered, appealed.

Therefore, the question to be decided in this case in whether or not the customs authorities abused their authority and discretion. This court has examined the record and found that when the petitioner was required to point out his alleged son Lee Yit, he indicated a different person. Having discovered his mistake, he attempted to exculpate himself by feigning defective eyesight, and the certificate presented to prove such fact really states that "due to his age, his eyesight is defective and he cannot clearly distinguish objects at a certain distance." The latter board of special inquiry of the Bureau of Customs did not give credit to this explanation nor to the certificate in question, and this court understands why it refused to do so. When the petitioner was requested to point out his son, and he did so, it was an indication that he had seen the latter, otherwise, the most natural thing for him to do should have been to request permission to approach his son. If he found it unnecessary to request such permission, it was undoubtedly due to the fact that his sight was not so badly defective as to prevent him from complying with the wishes of the customs official who requested him to point out his son.

This court likewise found that of the two photographs shown to Lee Yit, one of which was that of his brother Lee Bak and the other of his brother Lee Nam, for the purpose of identifying each of them, said Lee Yit indicated Lee Bak’s photograph as that of Lee Nam, although, discovering his mistake, he rectified it some minutes later by correctly telling which was which. If the board of special inquiry of the Bureau of Customs did not give credit to these explanations, it did not, on that account, commit any abuse of authority or discretion because customs authorities are not bound to accept as satisfactory and true, in all cases, the statements made before them by an immigrant (Jao Igco v. Morgan Shuster, 10 Phil., 448; Lee Jua v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil., 24; Chattamal v. Collector of Customs, 42 Phil., 916); and lastly, this court finds that the testimony of the father and that of the son on some details regarding their house in China; the ages of the latter’s brothers who, according to him, were seven in number; and other minor details, tally so well and without the least discrepancy that it cannot but be attributed to a thorough coaching of the two, particularly if it is borne in mind that neither could the father recognize the son nor the son recognize his two alleged brothers Lee Nam and Lee Bak, through their photographs.

Wherefore, and in the absence of a showing that the customs authorities have abused their discretion and authority, as imputed to them, in denying Lee Yit’s right to land at this port in order to reside with the petitioner in the Philippine Islands, it is hereby ordered that the appealed order be reversed and the said Lee Yit again be placed in the custody of the respondent, with cost against the complainant. So ordered.

Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Butte, 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






March-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 37986 March 1, 1934 - EUFEMIA MERCADO v. MUN. PRES. OF MACABEBE

    059 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 36699 March 3, 1934 - HEIRS OF DATU PENDATUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 40468 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO M. SIOJO

    059 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 40512 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERFECTO TAYAG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 40592 March 3, 1934 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 40895 March 5, 1934 - TEOFILO HAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 37602 March 7, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RAFAEL FERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 39633 March 7, 1934 - HENRY HERMAN v. LA URBANA

    059 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 39433 March 9, 1934 - CLEMENTE A. LAZARO, ET AL. v. FELICIANA MARIANO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 39796 March 9, 1934 - ANTONIO GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.

    059 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 38736 March 10, 1934 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF NUEVA ECIJA v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    059 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 39209 March 10, 1934 - HIPOLITO ANDALIS v. LUCIA PULGUERAS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 39806 March 10, 1934 - LA URBANA v. SUSANA VILLASOR, ET AL.

    059 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 40309 March 10, 1934 - BERNARDINO QUITORIANO, ET AL. v. ROQUE M. CENTENO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 40327 March 10, 1934 - DIONISIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL. v. PNB

    059 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 39797 March 12, 1934 - FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN v. IRENE PAÑGANIBAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. 39679 March 13, 1934 - GENATO COMM’L. CORP. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 39440 March 14, 1934 - RAFAEL VILLANUEVA v. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA

    059 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 39801 March 14, 1934 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. JUAN POSADAS, JR.

    059 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 37671 March 15, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TANSIOCO, ET AL. v. FELICIANO RAMOSO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 40177 March 15, 1934 - LI SENG GIAP & CO. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    059 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 39389 March 16, 1934 - LUIS MIRASOL v. MARIA LIM

    059 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 40147 March 16, 1934 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO ITALIA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 712

  • G.R. Nos. 339303-39305 March 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FELIPE KALALO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 40480 March 17, 1934 - GABINO ABALA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 40561 March 17, 1934 - LEE CHIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 39670 March 20, 1934 - ROSARIO OÑAS v. CONSOLACION JAVILLO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 39799 March 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO NARVAES

    059 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 39681 March 21, 1934 - BONIFACIO LUMANLAN v. JACINTO R. CURA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 39883 March 21, 1934 - ODUS C. HORNEY v. SOUTHERN TRANS. & TRADING CO.

    059 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 39596 March 23, 1934 - GOTAUCO & CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS

    059 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 39587 March 24, 1934 - ALEKO E. LILIUS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 40935 March 26, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. APRONIANO DIAZ

    059 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. 40315 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. AUSTIN TAXICAB CO.

    059 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 40316 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. PANFILO SABELLANO

    059 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. 40317 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. E. VESNAN

    059 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. 40319 March 27, 1934 - ESMERALDA VESNAN v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. 40425 March 27, 1934 - RAMON SILOS v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 36657 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. 36701 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. ORIENT INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. 37757 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 39746 March 28, 1934 - LA URBANA v. AIMEE SARGENT VIUDA DE ALEGRE

    059 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 39842 March 28, 1934 - IMUS ELECTRIC CO. v. MUN. OF IMUS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 39996 March 28, 1934 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. FERNANDO GREY, JR., ET AL.

    059 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 41433 March 28, 1934 - NATALIO AREVALO v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 839

  • G.R. Nos. 36811, 36827, 36840 & 36872 March 31, 1934 - ANTONIO MA. R. BARRETTO, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 845