APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal of the Insular Collector
of Customs against a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila
in a habeas corpus case.

It appears that the petitioner, Apolonio de los Santos, a Filipino
citizen, on August 5, 1933, applied for admission to the Philippine
Islands of Diy Bun Lay and Lian Chiat Santos who arrived at the port of
Manila on said date and sought admission claiming to be the wife and
minor son of Apolonio de los Santos. A board of special inquiry
rendered a decision denying them the right of entry and this decision
was confirmed by the Insular Collector of Customs. A rehearing was
granted and on September 6, 1933, another board of special inquiry
again denied the petition and their decision was confirmed by the
collector. This petition for habeas corpus was thereupon filed in the
Court of First Instance of Manila. The petitioner presented in evidence
the record of the proceedings before the customs officials, also
Exhibit B, a supposed marriage contract, apparently written in Chinese.
Exhibit B-l, an English translation of Exhibit B and Exhibit B-2, a
certificate of the Chinese Consul General, were rejected by the court,
and properly so because they had not been submitted to the Insular
Collector of Customs.

An examination of the proceedings had before the Insular Collector
of Customs convinces us that the respondent-appellant was not guilty of
abuse of discretion or arbitrary proceedings.The applicants were given
two separate hearings, as stated. There were a number of contradictions
and also improbabilities in the testimony of the petitioners before the
respondent. Exhibit B is a suspicious document.

The learned trial judge observed the conduct of the petitioner,
Apolonio de los Santos, toward Diy Bun Lay in the court room and
concluded therefrom that they must be husband and wife. Doubtless, the
two were together before the separate special boards of inquiry who had
opportunity likewise to observe them. Boards of special inquiry are
warranted in taking such personal observations into consideration but
we are not aware of any authority that sustains a judicial tribunal on
an application for a writ of habeas corpus, which is confined to the
resolution of questions of law, to make independent observations which
the respondent either had no opportunity to make or interpreted
differently if he had the opportunity.

The judgment below is reversed with costs against the appellee and
it is directed that Diy Bun Lay and Lian Chiat Santos be surrendered to
the custody of the respondent ta be dealt with in accordance with law.

Street, Abad Santos, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.