[ G.R. No. 7096. December 12, 1912 ]

[ G.R. No. 7096. December 12, 1912 ]

[ G.R. No. 7096. December 12, 1912 ]

ANG ENG CHONG, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

JOHNSON, J.:

The record shows that upon the 6th day of January, 1911, two Chinese boy Ang Eng Chong and Ang Tiao Chuan, of the respective ages of 17 and 19, who claimed to be brothers and sons of Ang Co, arrived at the port of Manila on the steamship Yingchow and asked to be admitted into the Philippine Islands. The fact is not denied that Ang Co, the alleged father, was a merchant engaged in the dry goods business in the city of Manila.

After hearing the evidence, the board of special inquiry found that Ang T Chuan was a minor and the legitimate son of Ang Co and admitted him into the Philippine Islands. The said board however found from the evidence that Ang Eng Chong was not the legitimate son of Ang Co and refused him admission. From that decision of the board of special inquiry Ang Eng Chong appealed to the Collector of Customs who affirmed the decision of said board. Later he presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila.

After an examination of the record and the testimony adduced, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, found that there was an abuse of discretion on the part of the board of special inquiry in denying the petitioner the to land in the Philippine Islands and directed that Ang Eng Chong be discharged from the custody of the law and be admitted into the Philippine Islands, From that order the Attorney-General appealed to this court.

The principal assignment of error made by the Attorney-General is that the Court of First Instance erred in reviewing, revising, and reversing the of the customs authorities, and in holding that there was an abuse of authority on the part of such officers in denying the petitioner's right to

The Supreme Court of the United States, the district and circuit courts, as this court, have decided in numerous cases that the decision of the proper immigration officers in denying a Chinese person the right to land territory of the United States is final, unless there has been an abuse of authority. (Ngo-Ti vs. Shuster, 7 Phil. Rep., 355; U. S. vs.