G.R. No. L-11086; February 2, 1916
MARTINIANO VALDEZCO SY CHIOK, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:
On or about June 3, 1915, Martiniano Valdezco Sy Chiok arrived at the port of Manila, claiming the right to enter the Philippine Islands as a citizen by virtue of his birth therein. An immigration inspector refused him admission and referred him to a board of special inquiry for examination. The board, composed of two immigration inspectors and a customs stenographer, heard his case on June 4, 1915. After considering the testimony of his witnesses, the board found that Sy Chiok was a person of pure Chinese blood, not a Chinese-Filipino mestizo, and that he was not the person he claimed to be. It concluded he was a Chinese person without the certificate required by law for entry and refused him landing. The Insular Collector of Customs affirmed this decision on appeal.

Sy Chiok then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The court, after hearing, found no abuse of discretion or violation of law by the customs officials and refused to issue the writ, ordering his remand for deportation. Sy Chiok appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court, raising several assignments of error.

ISSUE:
The primary issue is whether the Court of First Instance erred in refusing to issue the writ of habeas corpus and in declining to take new testimony on the merits, based on its finding that the customs officials did not abuse their discretion or violate the law in denying Sy Chiok’s entry.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, denying the writ and upholding the deportation order.

1. On the Authority of the Attorney-General and the Sufficiency of the Return: The Court held that the Attorney-General had the authority to make and sign the return to the writ directed to a customs official. It also found that the return complied with legal requirements, following prior precedents.

2. On the Refusal to Take Testimony in the Habeas Corpus Proceeding: The Court ruled that a Court of First Instance, in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging a customs board’s decision, acquires jurisdiction to proceed only after the petitioner demonstrates that the customs officials abused their authority or acted on a wrong principle or in violation of law. The mere allegation that the board’s decision was wrong is insufficient. Since Sy Chiok failed to make this preliminary showing, the trial court correctly refused to hear new evidence on the merits of his citizenship claim.

3. On the Composition of the Board of Special Inquiry: The Court reaffirmed that a board composed of two immigration inspectors and a customs stenographer is legally constituted, citing settled jurisprudence.

4. On the Evidence Considered by the Board: The Court held that the board properly considered Sy Chiok’s personal appearance, racial characteristics, language, dress, manner, and point of origin (a Chinese port) as competent evidence to make a prima facie case for the government. The board’s finding that he was of pure Chinese blood and not born in the Philippines was supported by this evidence and other facts, such as his inability to speak the local Pangasinan language and his lack of resemblance to his alleged family.

5. On Citizenship by Birth and Possible Renunciation: The Court noted that the board’s factual findingthat Sy Chiok was not born in the Philippinesdisposed of his claim to citizenship by birth. Furthermore, citing prior cases, the Court observed that even if born in the Philippines, a person may lose that citizenship by emigrating to a foreign country and remaining there for a prolonged period after reaching majority, which could indicate renunciation. The record showed Sy Chiok left for China at age eight and returned at age twenty-five without evident intent to return during that interval.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no error in the proceedings below and affirmed the judgment, with costs against the appellant.