Case Digest (G.R. No. 46838)
Facts:
Go Chuan Guan v. Jost Gallofin, Administrator of Customs, Port of Cebu, G.R. No. 46838. April 03, 1940, the Supreme Court En Banc, Imperial, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Go Chuan Guan, an eight‑year‑old Chinese national, arrived at the Port of Cebu in November 1937 and sought admission into the Philippines as the minor son of Go Su Keng, whom he alleged to be a Chinese merchant resident in the Philippines. At the Special Investigation Board convened under the Customs administration, the petitioner testified to his birth (25 November 1930, Tangtan, Chingkang, China), parentage (father Go Su Keng; mother Chua Uy), schooling, and the circumstances of his coming to the Philippines. His alleged father corroborated the relationship, supplied marriage and travel history, and evidence of returns to the Philippines (certificates showing returns on 9 December 1931 and 22 October 1937).
During the Board’s inquiry the petitioner offered proof to establish that Go Su Keng was a bona fide Chinese merchant with an established business and residence in the country. The Special Investigation Board refused to admit that proof on the ground that a Chinese’s status as a merchant must be certified by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to a Department circular. The Board then found that the petitioner had no right to entry because he had not proved that his alleged father was a recognized merchant; the Secretary of Labor affirmed the Board’s decision.
The petitioner thereafter filed a habeas corpus proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The trial court admitted evidence regarding the father’s occupation and residence and rendered judgment declaring that the petitioner had the right to enter and reside as the minor son of a merchant who had an establishment at least one year before the petitioner’s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Special Investigation Board err in refusing to admit the offered proof of the alleged father’s merchant status on the basis that such status must be certified by the Secretary of Labor under a departmental circular?
- Should the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court be sustained, or must the case be remanded to the Special Investigation Board for determination...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)