G.R. No. L-10989; January 24, 1916
GO PAW, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:
Go Paw, a person of Chinese descent, arrived in Manila from Amoy, China, on April 26, 1915, accompanied by two individuals claiming to be his brother (Go Tun) and mother (Irene Yangco). He was denied entry by the immigration authorities for lacking the required certificate or evidence proving he belonged to an exempt class under the Chinese Exclusion Laws. After the Board of Special Inquiry and the Insular Collector of Customs on appeal rejected his claim, Go Paw filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the habeas corpus hearing, Go Paw presented a copy of the Collector’s decision and testifiedalong with his alleged mother and another witnessthat Irene Yangco was a Filipina who had lived in China for 25 years, and that Go Paw was her son by a Chinese father, though they were never legally married. The court refused to grant the writ and ordered Go Paw returned to the custody of the Collector. Go Paw appealed, assigning several errors.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the return to the writ of habeas corpus was defective for being signed by the Attorney-General instead of the custodian.
2. Whether the Insular Collector of Customs abused his authority by deciding the appeal without having all the evidence from the Board of Special Inquiry, including observation of the appellant’s personal appearance.
3. Whether the Board of Special Inquiry was illegally constituted.
4. Whether the entire record of the proceedings before the Board and the Collector should have been included in the return to the writ.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, denying the writ of habeas corpus.

1. On the return signed by the Attorney-General: The Court held that this was permissible, citing prior jurisprudence (Lee Jua v. Collector of Customs), and thus no error was committed.

2. On the Collector’s decision without observing the appellant: The Court found no abuse of discretion. The record did not show what evidence the Board relied on, and the Collector’s decision was based on discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of Go Paw’s witnesses, as well as the fact that they testified about events from when they were very young (ages 7 and 10). The Collector had sufficient grounds to discredit the evidence. Moreover, even if the Board considered Go Paw’s appearance, the Collector could decide the appeal on the evidence before him without seeing the appellant personally, as established in Que Quay v. Collector of Customs.

3. On the alleged illegality of the Board of Special Inquiry: The Court rejected this argument, noting that the composition of the Board had been upheld in previous cases, including Chieng Ah Sui v. Collector of Customs, which was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

4. On the necessity of including the entire administrative record in the return: The Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure did not require the Insular Collector to attach the proceedings before the Board or the appellate decision to the return. The return need only state the authority and cause for detention, and in exclusion cases, the presumption is against the right of a Chinese person to enter unless they prove exemption. The administrative decisions are not equivalent to a “writ, warrant, execution, or other process” that must be attached.

Conclusion: The findings of the Board of Special Inquiry and the Insular Collectorthat Go Paw failed to prove he was the son of a Filipino womanwere supported by evidence and involved no abuse of discretion or violation of law. The writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. Costs were imposed on the appellant.