G. R. No. 42103. October 20, 1934

TENG CHING, IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF HIS SONS TENG SAN, TENG LAM AND TENG TONG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions October 20, 1934 ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Download PDF


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Teng San, Teng Lam and Teng Tong claimed
the right to land and reside in this country as the minor children of
the petitioner, Teng Ching. After due hearing, a board of special
inquiry denied them the right to land and reside here. On appeal, the
respondent Insular Collector of Customs confirmed the decision of the
board, and ordered that said Teng San, Teng Lam and Teng Tong be
returned to their port of embarkation in accordance with law.

This appeal raises the question of whether or not the court below was
justified in disregarding said decision and order of the Insular
Collector of Customs.

As a condition, precedent to the admission of his minor children,
the law requires a Chinese father to establish his exempt status not
only by his own testimony but by the testimony of two or more credible
witnesses other than Chinese. (Rule 9, subdivision 2, of the Rules of
October 1, 1926, of the United States Department of Labor; In re
Quan Gin, 61 Fed., 395.) In the instant case, the record discloses no
sufficient evidence that Teng Ching had established his exempt status.
It is true that he filed an application to the Insular Collector of
Customs for indorsement as a resident Chinese merchant, but the record
does not show that such application has been approved. Even if we
considered the investigation conducted by the board of special inquiry,
as relating to his own application for indorsement as a resident
Chinese merchant, the evidence presented must be held insufficient to
support his application, inasmuch as his testimony before the board was
not supplemented by the testimony of two or more credible witnesses
other than Chinese, as required by law.

Upon the foregoing considerations, the order appealed from must be
set aside, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus denied, with
costs against the appellee. So ordered.

Street, Hull, Vickers, and Diaz, JJ., concur.