G.R. No. L-10503; October 20, 1915
IRINEO DEL ROSARIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
On June 3, 1914, Irineo del Rosario arrived at the port of Manila and sought permission to enter the Philippine Islands. He claimed to be a native-born Filipino, born on June 28, 1896, in Manila, the son of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother. He alleged he left for China at age four and was now returning at age eighteen. In support, he presented a baptismal certificate from the Santa Cruz Church dated July 12, 1896, showing the baptism of a child named Irineo del Rosario, the natural son of the Filipina Benedicta del Rosario, with the father unknown.

The Board of Special Inquiry found his testimony unsatisfactory and, based on his physical appearance and the testimony of a Chinese doctor who estimated his age at no more than fourteen, concluded he was between twelve and fourteen years old. As such, he was refused landing. The Collector of Customs affirmed this decision.

Del Rosario then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The court, after review, upheld the customs authorities, finding no abuse of authority and that the decision was supported by proof. Del Rosario appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the Collector of Customs abused his authority or misinterpreted the law in refusing Irineo del Rosario entry into the Philippines.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, denying the writ of habeas corpus.

The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine that the decision of the Collector of Customs on matters of alien admission is final and conclusive upon the courts, provided it is based on a fair hearing and there is some evidence to support it. The courts will not interfere absent a clear showing of abuse of authority or a misinterpretation of the law.

In this case, the customs authorities conducted a proper hearing. The Board’s conclusion regarding the appellant’s agewhich was central to his claim of derivative citizenship from his Filipina motherwas supported by evidence, including the expert medical opinion and the Board’s own physical observation of the appellant. The trial judge also personally observed the appellant and concurred with the assessment of his age. Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion, and the Collector’s decision was upheld. Costs were taxed against the appellant.