G.R. No. L-16110; February 7, 1920
QUAN FAR, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:
Quan Far arrived in Manila on September 22, 1919, seeking entry as the legitimate minor son of Quan San, a resident Chinese merchant. A Board of Special Inquiry heard his application. Quan Far testified he was 20 years old. His father, Quan San, corroborated this, testifying that Quan Far was his legitimate 20-year-old son. Another witness, Quan Choc, also testified to knowing both individuals and confirmed their relationship and Quan Far’s age. No other evidence was presented. The Board found Quan Far to be “overage” (evidently meaning over 21 years old) and denied him entry. The Collector of Customs affirmed this decision on December 6, 1919. Quan Far then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance, which was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE:
Did the Board of Special Inquiry commit a grave abuse of discretion or act without evidence in finding Quan Far to be “overage” and denying his entry?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered Quan Far discharged from custody. The Court held that the Board’s finding was not supported by any evidence. The unanimous testimony of the applicant and his witnesses stated he was 20 years old. The Board’s contrary conclusion was based on no stated factual basis in the record. Citing precedent (Dy Keng vs. Collector of Customs), the Court ruled that while age may be determined by personal appearance, the specific facts leading to such a conclusion must be placed on record. A mere opinion or unsupported conclusion, without stating the particular observations upon which it is based, constitutes an abuse of authority. Since there was no proof to sustain the finding of being “overage,” the denial of entry was unlawful. The judgment of the lower court was reversed.