G. R. No. 42108. 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.