Facts:

The petitioner in this case is Antonio, also known as Uy Lim, while the respondent is the Insular Collector of Customs. The events leading to this case began when Antonio was arrested on a warrant issued by the Insular Collector of Customs, which accused him of entering the Philippine Islands under false pretenses. The accusation specifically stated that he had misrepresented himself as the son of Uy Tat, a well-known resident Chinese merchant, when he was not. The issue was examined by a board of special inquiry that subsequently recommended his deportation. The Insular Collector of Customs concluded that Antonio entered the Philippines in 1915 by falsely claiming to be Uy Tat's son.

During a hearing held on February 4, 1935, it was revealed that Antonio claimed he had two brothers by the same parents and two brothers by his father and a concubine. However, records indicated that Uy Tat had nine legitimate children with his wife, See Toan, contradicting Antonio's state

...

Facts:

Arrest and Charging of the Petitioner

• The petitioner, Antonio (alias Uy Lim), was arrested on a warrant issued by the Insular Collector of Customs.
• He was charged as an alien for allegedly gaining admission into the Philippine Islands through false and fraudulent representations.
• A board of special inquiry was convened and held a hearing, which culminated in a recommendation for his deportation.

Findings by the Respondent (Insular Collector of Customs)

• The petitioner was admitted into the Philippine Islands in 1915 as a son of Uy Tat, a resident Chinese merchant, based on a landing certificate of residence issued on April 22, 1915.
• At the board’s hearing, conducted on February 4, 1935, the petitioner testified that he had only two full brothers and two half-brothers.
• The record, however, indicated that Uy Tat had nine children by his legitimate wife, See Toan, and no reference was made to any concubine.
• Based on this discrepancy, the respondent inferred that the petitioner had misrepresented his true parentage, thereby entering the country through false representations.

Documentary and Evidentiary Basis

• The disputed evidence included several merchant’s affidavits filed by Uy Tat over a span of years:
• Merchant’s affidavit No. 8758 (May 4, 1911)
• Merchant’s affidavit No. 13460 (January 29, 1915)
• Merchant’s affidavit No. 18379 (December 16, 1918)
• Merchant’s affidavit No. 23182 (May 14, 1920), which specifically noted that Uy Tat had nine children by his legitimate wife.
• The affidavit prepared in 1920 played a crucial role in the respondent’s conclusion, even though the affidavit from 1915, which would have been contemporaneous with the petitioner’s admission, was not introduced into the record.
• The petitioner’s repeated travel history—making five or six visits to China over twenty years with corresponding re-entry notations on his certificate—also appeared in the record as evidence of his longstanding right to remain in the country.

Order for Deportation

• Relying on the discrepancy between the petitioner’s testimony and Uy Tat’s later statement, the respondent ordered the petitioner’s deportation pursuant to section 20 of the Act of Congress approved February 5, 1917, on the ground of having secured entry through false and fraudulent representations (Section 19 of the same Act).
• The decision was implemented despite the absence of corroborative evidence to conclusively prove that the petitioner falsified his identity.

Issue:

Adequacy and Probative Value of the Evidence

• Whether the discrepancy between the petitioner’s testimony and the unsworn statement of Uy Tat (made in 1920) constitutes clear and convincing evidence of fraudulent entry.
• Whether the evidence presented by the respondent, particularly the later affidavit of Uy Tat, is sufficient to overcome the petitioner’s prima facie right to remain, as evidenced by his landing certificate.

Procedural Fairness and the Role of Cross-Examination

• Whether the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the source of the conflicting testimony, given that Uy Tat was deceased at the time of the hearing.
• The implications of relying on post-admission statements versus contemporaneous affidavits (e.g., the 1915 affidavit) in determining the accuracy of the petitioner’s representation at the time of landing.

The Application of Administrative Discretion

• Whether the respondent abused his discretion by ordering deportation based solely on conflicting statements without a full examination of all evidence on record.
• How the burden of proof shifts once a statutory certificate (landing certificate) establishes a prima facie right, requiring the government to produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut it.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)