JOSE FELIPE BRACA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This was a petition for the writ of, habeas corpus presented in the
Court of First Instance. The appellant claimed the right to enter the territory
of the United States. That right having been denied by the Insular Collector of
Customs the present proceedings were instituted. After having considered the
record of the department of customs, which was presented in the habeas
corpus proceedings, the Hon. George R. Harvey, in a very carefully prepared
opinion, reached the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to enter the
territory of the United States, denied the petition for the writ of habeas
corpus, and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the Insular Collector
of Customs, with costs. From that judgment the petitioner appealed.

It appears from the record that on the 19th day of April, 1917, the appellant
arrived at the port of Manila on the steamship Tean and asked
permission to enter the Philippine Islands. His right to enter was based upon
the pretension that he was the son of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. In
support of that contention several witnesses were called. In addition to the
declaration of the witnesses a baptismal certificate was presented, which shows
that on the 5th day of January, 1902, there was baptized in the church of the
“Parroquia de la Ermita, Arrabal de Manila/’ a child by the name of Jose Felipe,
the natural son of one Justa Braca, a native of the municipality of Malabon. And
further that D. Felipe Calderon was its godfather. The said Justa Braca appeared
as a witness and testified that the petitioner was her son; that she had lived
with the alleged father of the petitioner, Tan Kio; and that two children were
born of that relation, the petitioner who was 17 years of age and one called
Rosario who was 15 years of age; that she was a native of the Philippine Islands
and of the municipality of Malabon; that she was a Chinese mestiza; that she had
lived in China for one year and a half. The petitioner testified that he went to
China when he was 5 years of age; that he went there with his uncle; that his
mother returned to the Philippine Islands with him.

The hearing before the board of special inquiry took place on the 22d day of
June, 1917, and the petitioner stated that he was then 17 years of age. If the
facts stated in the baptismal certificate were true, and that he was born on the
5th day of January, 1902, he was at the time of the hearing but a little over 15
years of age, or to be exact, was 15 years, 5 months, and 17 days of age. The
board of special inquiry, after hearing the evidence and seeing the witnesses
and having examined them, and taking into consideration the personal appearance
of the petitioner, reached the conclusion that he was not the person mentioned
in said baptismal certificate; for the reason that he appeared to be a person of
between 21 and 25 years of age. The board of special inquiry further found that
he was not the person he represented himself to be, but a Chinese person coming
to the Philippine Islands without the section six certificate required by law
for the admission of Chinese, and refused him the right to enter. From that
judgment an appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs. The Collector of
Customs found from the evidence that the petitioner Jose Felipe Braca was not
the son of Justa Braca, but was a Chinese person coming to the Philippine
Islands without the certificate required by law.

The department of customs, in the exercise of its power and discretion in
determining whether or not immigrants have a right to enter the Philippine
Islands, may take into consideration the personal appearance of such immigrants
for the purpose of determining whether they are aliens or not. (Tan Beko
vs. Collector of Customs, 26 Phil. Rep., 254; De la Cruz vs.
Collector of Customs, 26 Phil. Rep., 270; Chua Yeng vs. Collector of
Customs, 28 Phil. Rep., 591; Leong Guen vs. Collector of Customs, 31
Phil. Rep., 417; Sing Jing Talento vs. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil.
Rep., 82; Que Quay vs. Collector of Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 128; U. S.
vs. Kong Fong, 33 Phil. Rep., 234; Go Paw vs. Collector of
Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 278; Valdezco Sy Chiok vs. Collector of
Customs, 33 Phil. Rep., 406; Guevara vs. Collector of Customs, 34 Phil.
Rep., 394; See Chiat and See Huan vs. Collector of Customs 34 Phil.
Rep., 865; Co Puy vs. Collector of Customs, p. 409, ante;
Laurencio vs. Collector of Customs, 35 Phil. Rep., 37.)

The customs authorities may also determine from the personal appearance of
the immigrant what his age is. The person of a Chinese alien seeking admission
into the Philippine Islands is evidence in an investigation by the board of
special inquiry to determine his right to enter; and such body may take into
consideration his appearance to determine or assist in determining his age and a
finding that the applicant is not a minor based upon such appearance is not
without evidence to support it. (Tan Beko vs. Collector of Customs, 26
Phil. Rep., 254; De la Cruz vs. Collector of Customs, 26 Phil. Rep.,
270; Ex parte Chooey Dee Ying, 214 Fed., 873; Leong Guen vs.
Collector of Customs, 31 Phil. Rep., 417; Guevara vs. Collector of
Customs, 34 Phil. Rep., 394; U. S. vs. Hing Chang, Circuit
Court of
Appeals Reports, 19.)

If the department of customs may examine the immigrant for the purpose of
determining his age, then no error nor abuse of power or discretion was
committed in the present case in that respect. And if the petitioner was a
person of from 21 to 25 years of age, as the department of customs found, then
the baptismal certificate presented did not refer to him, and, of course, he was
not the person whom he represented himself to be.

There is nothing in the record’ which shows that the department of customs
acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Under the provisions of section 25 of the Act
of Congress,known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the courts cannot review an
order of the immigration authorities excluding a Chinese person, when there is
some evidence to support such order. (Ex parte Ng Kwack Kang, 233 Fed.,
478.)

There is nothing in the record which shows that the department of customs
abused its power or discretion in denying the appellant the right to enter the
Philippine Islands. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, hereby affirmed,
with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Carson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ.,
concur.