This  is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in case G. R.  No. 140 of that court, entitled Benito Mateo vs. The Insular  Collector of Customs.

It appears that on December 21, 1935 Sim It arrived at the port of Manila and sought admission into the country as a son of the petitioner Benito Mateo,  a Filipino citizen. On December 28, 1935, the board  of special inquiry  conducted  an investigation  and  denied the  application  for admission.  The action of the board of special inquiry was approved by the Insular Collector of Customs.  Thereafter, the petitioner instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila.   On  February 5, 1936, Judge Marcelo T. Boncan of the Court of First Instance of Manila  granted the petition for habeas corpus and ordered the release of Sim  It who was then in the custody of the customs authorities.  From this decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila an appeal  was taken to the Court of Appeals which on July 27, 1936, reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance.  Hence this petition.

Review of judgments and decrees of the Court of Appeals is  limited to  "cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved" (sec.  2, Commonwealth Act No. 3, amending sec. 138 of the Administrative Code, in relation to sec. 2,  Art  VIII,  Constitution  of the  Philippines).  Rule 47  of this court,  as  amended, prescribes  the mode in respect to  cases brought to the Supreme Court by appeal or bill of exceptions or on certiorari.  The pertinent portions of this rule are as follows:

"JUDGMENTS  OF THE COURTS  OF FIRST INSTANCE REVIEW ON APPEAL
"47. (a) In any of the cases enumerated under the second paragraph  of section 138 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3 of the National Assembly, the party aggrieved by the decision, order, or decree of any Court of First Instance may appeal to this court in accordance with the rules heretofore followed in respect to cases of similar  nature brought to this court by appeal or bill of exceptions.

"JUDGMENTS  OF THE COURT OF APPEALS PETITIONS  FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
"(6)  A petition to this court for a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals shall contain only a summary statement of the matter involved  and the reasons relied on for the allowance of the  writ.  Only questions of law may be raised and must be distinctly set forth. The petition  shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the decision sought  to be reviewed, and both documents, together with 10 copies of the bill of exceptions  or record on appeal as  printed below, shall be filed with  the clerk within ten  days from the date  of entry of the judgment involved.  This court may, on its own motion or on motion of the respondent, dismiss the petition on the ground that it is manifest that the  same was filed for delay only, or that the questions on which  the decision of the  cause depends are  so  unsubstantial  as not to  need further  argument.  •   •   •

*        *        *        *          *          *           *

44(e)  A review on writ  of certiorari is not  a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while  neither controlling  nor  fully  measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of reasons which will be considered:

"(1)  When the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by this court, or has decided it  in a way probably not in accord  with law or with the applicable decisions of this court.

"(2)  When  the Court of Appeals has  so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such  departure by a lower  court, as to call for an exercise of this court's power of supervision."

The petition  in the present case does not raise any question of  law.  The board of special inquiry upon  investigation found that the evidence in behalf of the applicant for admission was insufficient and contradictory  and denied the application.  This finding of  the board of special inquiry, as stated, was approved by the Collector of Customs. The Court of First Instance of  Manila disagreed with the board of special  inquiry and the  Collector of  Customs  on the credibility of the witnesses  and the weight of  the evidence  presented  and   reversed  the  action  of  the board of special inquiry as approved by  the  Collector of Customs by granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals,  in turn, disagreed with the Court of First Instance on the appreciation of the evidence and reversed the hitter's decision.  Under  these circumstances,  we cannot review the decision of  the Court of Appeals.  Were we to do so it would hardly be possible to set any limit to the recurrence  to. this court in  cases which under the  law should terminate in the Court of Appeals.   Upon the other hand, it should be observed that the Court of Appeals has decided the appeal  before it in accordance with  the applicable decisions of  this court  (Tan Chin Hin vs. Collector of Customs, 27 Phil., 521; Sing Jing Talento vs. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil., 82), and this is another reason why the present petition should not be entertained.

The petition is hereby dismissed with costs against  the petitioner.  So ordered.

Avanceña,  C. J.,  Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, and Recto, JJ., concur.