The record shows that upon the 6th day of January, 1911, two  Chinese boy Ang Eng Chong and Ang Tiao Chuan, of the respective ages of 17 and  19, who claimed to be brothers and sons of Ang Co, arrived at the port of Manila on the steamship Yingchow and asked to be admitted into the Philippine Islands.

The fact is not denied that Ang Co, the alleged father, was  a merchant engaged in the dry goods business in the city of Manila.

After hearing the evidence, the board of special inquiry found that Ang T Chuan  was a minor and the legitimate son of Ang Co and admitted  him into the Philippine Islands. The said board however found from the evidence that Ang Eng  Chong  was not  the legitimate son of Ang Co and refused him  admission.  From that decision of the board of special inquiry Ang E Chong appealed to the Collector of Customs who affirmed the decision of said board.  Later he presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila.

After an examination of the record and the testimony adduced, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, found that there was an abuse of discretion on the part of the board of special inquiry in denying the petitioner the to land in the Philippine Islands and directed that Ang Eng Chong be discharged from the custody of the law and be admitted into the Philippine Islands,   From that order the Attorney-General appealed to this court.

The principal assignment of error made by the Attorney-General is that the Court of First Instance erred in reviewing,  revising, and reversing the of the customs authorities, and in holding that there was an abuse of authority on the part of such officers in denying the petitioner's right to

The Supreme Court of the United States, the district and circuit courts, as this court, have decided in numerous cases that the decision of the proper immigration officers in denying a Chinese person the right to land territory of the United States is final, unless there has been an abuse of authority.  (Ngo-Ti vs. Shuster, 7 Phil. Rep., 355; U. S. vs. McCoy, 8 Phil. Rep., 343.)

The question presented by the appeal in the present case is, therefore, w or not there was an abuse of authority on the part of the  board of special inquiry.  The law has conferred upon the executive branch of the Government the right to determine, of the excluded classes of aliens, who are entitle enter  the territory of  the United States.  The law makes the conclusion that department of the Government final, subject to certain exceptions which will be noted later.  The judicial department of the Government, however, the right, in a proper proceeding, to determine whether or not in the exercise of  that authority there has been an abuse of  the authority conferred by law.  If there has been no abuse of the authority conferred by law, then decision of the executive department of the Government is final and the courts are without jurisdiction to consider the question. Abuse of authority on the part of the officers of the executive department of the Government , is the  only basis upon which the courts will assume jurisdiction to revise, or reverse the decisions of that department. The courts must, therefore, at the outset determine whether there has  been an  abuse of authority on the part of the officials of the executive department of the Government.  If the courts find that there has been no abuse of authority then they have no  jurisdiction to revise, review, or reverse the conclusion reached by the executive department of the Government.  This being true, becomes important to determine what  will amount to an abuse of authority We think that a careful review of the numerous decisions  upon this quest justifies the following:  conclusions upon that point.  An abuse of authority certainly exists:

(a)  When a person has been denied admission into the territory o United States who does not belong to any of  the excluded classes.  For example:  A citizen  of the United States or any other person who has acquired a right to be in  and to remain in territory of the United  Sta (U. S. vs. Go-Siaco, 12 Phil. Rep., 490; Munoz vs. Collect Customs, 20 Phil. Rep., 494; U. S. vs.  Yu Kiao, 20  Phil. Rep., vs. Gue Lim, 176 U. S., 459; 83 Fed. Rep., 136.)

(b) When a person seeking admission has not been given a full, fa free  hearing.   For  example, when he has not been given an opportunity to present  all the material proof which he desires to present.   (Ngo-T vs. Shuster, 7 Phil. Rep., 355; U. S. vs. Ju Toy, 198 U. S., vs. McCoy, 8 Phil. Rep., 343.)

(c)  When there is  no  proof at all presented against the right applicant seeking admission.  (U. S. vs. Williams, 189 Fed. Rep.,

An  examination of the evidence  presented  before said board shows that there were many contradictory statements made by the  two alleged brothers  concerning particular facts, with reference  to which they  we questioned.  The two boys claimed that they were brothers and Had lived the same house in China.  Notwithstanding this claim, they told different stories with reference to the kind of house in which they had lived.  Ne did  they agree as to  what had been the occupation of each.  They each told different stories.  Boys  of  the ages of 17 and 19,  who have  live together in the same house, children of the same parents, ought to be ab to  agree with reference  to the kind  of house in which they had lived, well as to the occupation of each, in a general way.   Neither did the declarations of Ang  Eng Chong agree with the declarations of his allege father, in many  important facts.  These conflicting statements upon  fa with which both of these boys, if  they were in fact brothers, should  h been perfectly familiar, caused the board of special  inquiry to doubt t truthfulness of the statements of Ang Eng Chong and accordingly held that he was not the legitimate minor son.of Ang Co and was therefore  not entitled  to  enter the Philippine Islands. The board of special inquiry the law, had a right to examine the applicant  upon the question of his right  to enter the Philippine Islands.  Their right to examine into that involves their right to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence.  If the applicant belonged to the class which was excluded under the law, and if there was some evidence to support the  finding of the board, and if he was given a full, fair, and  free hearing, then the courts will not  take jurisdiction for the purpose of revising  and reversing the conclusions board, unless there has been some abuse of authority.

In the present case it clearly appears that the defendant was among the class of persons excluded under the  law. The record also discloses the that the defendant  was given an opportunity to present all the proof he had upon the question  of his right to enter.  There was some proof supporting the conclusions  of  the board of special inquiry.

Taking into  consideration the conflicting statements of the applicant, together with  the fact that  the board of special inquiry had an opportunity to see  him and hear his declarations and to weigh his testimony together with  that of the witnesses presented  by him, we are of the opinion that there was no. abuse of authority on the part of the board o special inquiry and that the judgment of the  Collector of Customs should affirmed.

Therefore the judgment of the  Court of First Instance reversing the judge of the board of special inquiry and admitting the applicant to the Philippine Islands should be and is hereby reversed, and, without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.
Carson,   and Trent, JJ., concur in the result.