Ng Tiong Suan v. Insular Collector of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ng Kun arrived in the Philippines from China seeking admission as the minor son of Ng Tiong Suan, an alleged resident Chinese merchant. The customs authorities denied Ng Kun's admission. Procedural History: Following the denial of admission by a board of special inquiry and confirmation by the Insular Collector of Customs, Ng Tiong Suan, on behalf of Ng Kun, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The lower court granted the writ. The Insular Collector of Customs, through the Solicitor-General, appealed this decision. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court on appeal from the Court of First Instance's grant of a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant argues that the lower court erred in granting the writ, contending that the petitioner failed to establish that he was a merchant, that Ng Kun was his minor son, and that the customs officials acted arbitrarily or abused their discretion in denying admission.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner, Ng Tiong Suan, sufficiently proved his status as a merchant. Whether Ng Kun was sufficiently proven to be the minor son of Ng Tiong Suan. Whether the customs authorities acted arbitrarily or abused their discretion in denying admission.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the writ of habeas corpus is reversed and set aside. The writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of merchant status: The proof submitted by the petitioner regarding his status as a merchant was far from conclusive. It primarily rested on his being one of seven owners of a Chinese partnership engaged in mercantile pursuits. This court has previously held, in Ang Giok Chip vs. Collector of Customs, that part ownership in a Chinese co-partnership and employment as a customs broker is insufficient proof of merchant status. In the present case, there was no satisfactory proof of what the petitioner was actually doing, leaving open the possibility that he was merely a day-laborer. The burden of establishing the legal right to have his alleged minor son admitted rests upon the petitioner. On the issue of filiation: It was not certain that Ng Kun was the minor son of the petitioner. The only evidence presented to this effect came from the petitioner himself and was not corroborated. Ng Kun, despite living with his seven brothers in China, could not recall their names, casting doubt on the veracity of his relationship to the petitioner. On the issue of arbitrary action or abuse of discretion: Due to the lack of satisfactory proof submitted by the petitioner on both his merchant status and the filiation of Ng Kun, it cannot be said that the customs authorities acted arbitrarily or abused their discretion in denying admission. The burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish his legal right to have his alleged minor son admitted into the country. When this burden is not discharged, the denial of admission by customs officials is justified.
Main Doctrine
The burden of proof rests upon the petitioner seeking admission into the country to establish the legal right of the alleged alien to enter, and the customs authorities are not deemed to have acted arbitrarily or abused their discretion in denying admission where such proof is lacking.