G.R. No. 250306 - People vs. Jumarang y Mulingbayan

Chun Chong, Chun Lei, and Chun Ken arrived at the port of Manila aboard the steamship Loongsang on January 2, 1917.
They requested permission to land in the Philippine Islands.

Chun Chong was recognized as a citizen of the United States and therefore entitled to enter the Philippine Islands.
Chun Lei and Chun Ken were held to be Chinese aliens who lacked the necessary credentials to enter the territory.

An appeal was taken to the Insular Collector of Customs based on the board's decision.
The Collector of Customs affirmed the board’s findings, effectively denying entry to Chun Lei and Chun Ken while confirming Chun Chong’s right to enter.

Chun Chong, representing himself and on behalf of his alleged sons, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The petition alleged:

That Chun Chong was a citizen of the United States.
That he was the legitimate father of the two individuals, who were aged 17 and 20 years, respectively.
That the detention of Chun Lei and Chun Ken by the Department of Customs was illegal.

Testimonies were given by the father and the alleged sons regarding their purpose for coming to Manila, including intentions to study, learn business, and engage in various business activities.
Despite slight inconsistencies in their statements concerning their purpose of travel, there existed positive and unequivocal testimony supporting the relationship of father and sons.
Additional witnesses corroborated the familial relationship without any challenge to their credibility.

It was well established that no Chinese subject or citizen could enter U.S. territory without a “Section 6 Certificate,” with recognized exceptions for the wife and minor children of Chinese residents in the United States.
The court noted the general rule, and its exceptions, which have been cited in previous cases and established in jurisprudence.

Whether the Customs authorities abused their power, authority, or discretion in denying Chun Lei and Chun Ken entry despite the positive and undisputed testimony establishing their legitimate filial relationship with Chun Chong.

Whether the slight conflict in the declarations regarding the purpose for traveling to Manila was sufficient to disregard the overwhelming evidence of parentage.

Whether differences in travel class between the father (first-class) and the alleged sons (second-class) provided a valid basis for denying entry.
Whether the alleged lack of physical resemblance between the father and the sons was a determinative factor in establishing or negating parentage.

Whether the court should modify or reverse the customs decision in the absence of evidence indicating an abuse of power or discretion.
The scope of judicial intervention when reviewing decisions solely based on the evaluation of witness credibility.