LEE CHIU, IN REPRESENTATION OF LEE YIT, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

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 is 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 phptograph 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 vs. Morgan Shuster, 10 Phil., 448; Lee Jua vs. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil., 24; Chattamal vs.
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 costs against the
complainant. So ordered.

Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.