G.R. No. 9195; September 13, 1915
LEONG GUEN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Leong Guen, a Chinese person, arrived at the port of Manila on December 7, 1912, claiming to be the minor son (18 years old) of Leong Tu Woo, a resident Chinese merchant. The Board of Special Inquiry, after investigation, found he was misrepresenting his age and was no longer a minor, and denied him entry. The Insular Collector of Customs affirmed this decision. Leong Guen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, which was later dismissed by agreement to allow the presentation of additional evidence before the Collector. A rehearing was held on April 2, 1913, where two medical doctors gave conflicting opinions on his age (approximately 20 and 21 years old). The Board and the Collector again found he was over 21 years old and ordered his deportation. Leong Guen filed a second petition for habeas corpus in the CFI, which was denied. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court can overturn the factual finding of the Collector of Customs that Leong Guen was over 21 years of age and thus not a minor entitled to enter as a merchant’s son.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus and the decision of the Collector of Customs. The Court held that where there is some evidence in the record to support the conclusions of the Collector of Customs on a question of fact (such as the age of an applicant), the judicial department is without authority to modify or reverse those conclusions. The Court examined the record and found evidence supporting the Collector’s finding: inconsistencies in the testimony regarding the name of the appellant’s mother, and contradictions in the father’s testimony regarding his own age at marriage which, when calculated, indicated the appellant was about 24 years olda calculation corroborated by another witness. Since the sole question was one of fact and evidence existed to support the administrative finding, the Supreme Court declined to interfere. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.