Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Wong Woo Yiu vs. Hon. Martiano Vivo, L-21076

Wong Woo Yiu vs. Hon. Martiano Vivo, L-21076

Ratings: (0)|Views: 246 |Likes:
Published by Angelo Isip
Persons and Family Relations CASE DIGEST
Persons and Family Relations CASE DIGEST

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Angelo Isip on Jun 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/07/2010

pdf

text

original

 
G.R. No. L-21076 March 31, 1965WONG WOO YIU alias NG YAO,
petitioner-appellee,vs.
HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ETC., ET AL.,
respondents-appellants.
Issue:
Whether or not WONG WOO YIU’s marriage to PERFECTO BLAS is valid in the Philippines,and her admission into the country is legal.
Facts:
In proceedings held before the Board of Special Inquiry sometime in June, 1961, WongWoo Yiu (petitioner) declared that 1) she came to the Philippines in 1961 for the firsttime to join her husband Perfecto Blas, a Filipino Citizen, to whom she was married inChingkang, China on January 15, 1929, 2) that they had several children all of whom arenot in the Philippines; 3) that their marriage was celebrated by one Chua Tio, a villageleader.On June 28, 1961 the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision findingpetitioner to be legally married to Perfecto Blas, thus declaring legal her admission intothe country. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners on July 12, 1961of which petitioner was duly informed in a letter sent on the same date by the Secretaryof the Board.However, on June 28, 1962, the same Board of Commissioners, but composed entirelyof a new set of members, rendered a new decision contrary to that of the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 and ordering petitioner to be excluded from the country, afterdiscrepancies were found in the statements made by petitioner and her allegedhusband during several investigations conducted by the immigration authoritiesconcerning the alleged marriage before a village leader in China in 1929, thusconcluding that the petitioner’s claim that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas waswithout basis in evidence as it was "bereft of substantial proof of husband-wiferelationship."
Held:
 The above revocation of decision cannot be disputed, it finding support in the recordand investigation. Indeed, not only is there no documentary evidence to support thealleged marriage of petitioner to Perfecto Blas but the record is punctured with so manyinconsistencies which cannot but lead one to doubt their veracity concerning the saidmarriage in China on 1929.Even if we assume, therefore, that the marriage of petitioner to Perfecto Blas before avillage leader is valid in China, the same is not one of those authorized in our country.
(In order that a marriage celebrated in the Philippines may be valid it must besolemnized either by a judge of any court inferior to the Supreme Court, a justice of the peace, or a priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination duly registered in thePhilippine Library and Museum Public Act 3412, Section 2)
Since our law onlyrecognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the officers mentioned therein, and avillage leader is not one of them, it is clear that petitioner's marriage cannot berecognized in this jurisdiction.Also, since no proof was presented relative to the law on marriage in China, we shouldapply the general rule that in the absence of proof of the law of a foreign country, it

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->