Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-31953 December 16, 1929
TEH HUAN (alias YU SIONG), petitioner-appellee,
vs.
THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellant.
J. W. Ferrier for appellee.
STATEMENT
October 22, 1927, the petitioner, Teh Huan (alias Yu Siong), and Tan Po Suan arrived at Manila and sought admission into this country, Teh Huan alleging that he was a resident merchant, and that Tan Po Suan was his wife. October 4, 1928, a special board of inquiry was appointed to her the evidence at which "the testimony of the applicants and their witnesses was taken," after which the board rendered a decision denying them the right to land, from which this appeal was taken to the Insular Collector of Customs, who reversed the decision of the board with respect to Teh Huan, and permitted him to land as a former resident, and confirmed the board in so far as it denied the right of Tan Po Suan to enter. Upon the rendition of this decision, a writ of habeas corpus was presented by Teh Huan on behalf of his alleged wife, which writ was granted by the lower court, from which the Collector of Customs appealed and assigns the following errors:
The lower court erred:
I. In holding that the customs authorities committed an abuse of discretion in denying Tan Po Suan admission into the Philippine Islands.lawphi1.net
II. In permitting Tan Po Suan to enter the Philippine Islands as the legitimate wife of Teh Huan alias Yu Siong.
III. In granting the writ of habeas corpus.
JOHNS, J.:
As to Teh Huan, the decision of the board of special inquiry was reversed by the Insular Collector of Customs, and the only question involved on this appeal is whether or not his alleged wife, Tan Po Suan, should be permitted to land. At the hearing before the board, Tan Po Suan testified that she was 26 years of age; that she married Teh Huan in China about 10 years ago, by whom she had two children, who were then living with her mother in China; and that she was living at Estraude Street No. 7, Manila with her husband. Teh Huan testified that Tan Po Suan was his wife, and that he married her in China about 10 years ago, and Ngo Tian testified that he was a merchant residing on T. Pinpin Street, and that he knew Tan Po Suan as the wife of Teh Huan, and that they were living at No. 7 Estraude Street, Manila. The evidence of Lucio Baltazar and Lorenzo Hernandez tends to show that they knew the husband, and that he was a merchant in Manila.
In its analysis of the evidence the board of special inquiry found that Teh Huan was not a merchant as he claims, and denied the right of either of them to land, but did not make any finding as to whether or not they were husband and wife. Apparently the board assumed that, if Teh Huan was not a merchant, neither of them was entitled to enter. As stated, the finding of the board as to Teh Huan was reversed by the Insular Collector of Customs, and he was permitted to land, and Tan Po Suan was denied the right to land, without any finding as to whether or not they were husband and wife. In other words, the custom authorities did not make any finding upon that vital and material point, and there is nothing in the record to dispute the testimony as to the alleged marriage, and for want of any finding on that point, there are no legal presumptions to overcome.
Section 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure says:
The following presumptions are satisfactory, if uncontradicted, but they are disputable, and may be contradicted by other evidence:
x x x x x x x x x
28. That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.lawphi1.net
x x x x x x x x x
The case of Chua Chiaco vs. Collector of Customs (53 Phil., 31), on which the Attorney-General relies, decided by this court on March 21, 1929, is not in point, for the simple reason that the customs authorities did not make any finding upon the vital question of marriage. For want of such finding, there is nothing to overcome the evidence submitted by the petitioners as to the marriage.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, without costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
