GO ENG CHEW, ON BEHALF OF GO CHIAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Manila denyingthe petition presented by Go
Eng Chew on behalf of his son Go Chian for a writ of habeas corpus.

Go Kay, Go Sin, Go Chian sought to enter the Philippine Islands as
the minor sons of Go Eng Chew, a resident Chinese merchant. On
September 14, 1933 a board of special inquiry denied them admission on
the ground that their alleged father, who is registered as a laborer,
did not have the right to bring his wife children into the Philippine
Islands, because although he had applied for an indorsement as a
merchant his application had not been acted upon. The three aliens
appealed to the Insular Collector of Customs, who granted them a
rehearing to give them an opportunity to prove that their father was a
merchant. The only evidence presented at the rehearing was the
testimony of two Filipinos who had bought shoes from Go Eng Chew,
alleged father of the minors, in Gara Street, Manila. According to them
Go Eng Chew had a shoe store at No. 313 Gara under the name of the
“Stard Sho Store” another at 315 Gara under the name of the “Hollywood
Shoe Store”. They testified that Go Eng Chew gave orders to the
employees, told the witnesses that he was one of the partners in the
business.

A certified copy of the articles of copartnership of a retail shoe
store at 313 Gara Street was presented at the rehearing. The partners
in this business were Go Eng Chew six other Chinese. The firm name was
Cua Peng & Co. the trade name was Pou Houn Shoe Store. The
partnership was organized on January 1, 1929 for a period of three
years, with a capital of P28,000, contributed in equal amounts by the
seven partners. Cua Peng, one of the partners, was appointed general
manager. These articles were ratified before a notary public on March
11, 1929 registered in the Mercantile Register on June 2, 1930.

The foregoing was all the evidence presented by the minors to show
that their alleged father was in fact a merchant. It will be noted that
Go Eng Chew applied for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of only one
of his three alleged sons, Go Chian, on the ground that the board of
special inquiry the respondent had abused their discretion in denying
him the right to l in the Philippine Islands. As already stated, the
only witnesses presented to prove that Go Eng Chew was a merchant were
two men who had bought shoes from him. No business man with whom Go Eng
Chew had dealt as a merchant was called to testify. Neither Go Eng Chew
himself nor his alleged partners were called for that purpose. The
partnership was organized for a period of three years from January 1,
1929. The term for which the partnership was organized expired
therefore on January 1, 1932, or two years prior to the rehearing on
January 17, 1934. Under these circumstances we cannot say that the
board of special inquiry the respondent erred in finding that the
petitioner had failed to prove that he was a merchant.

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.

Avancena, C. J., Abad Santos, Hull, and Diaz, JJ., concur.