You are on page 1of 3

Margaret Querubin vs Silvestre On March that year, custody was granted to Silvestre under an interlocutory

decree (although the child was still kept in the neutral home) because at the

Querubin time of the trial, Margaret was living with another man.

July 29, 1950 G.R. No. L-3693 Upon Margaret's petition, the interlocutory decree was modified. Since she
Ponente: Pablo, J. had then married the man she was living with and had a stable home, the
Mara (This case was in Spanish ~.~’’ Lifted from 3B 2009-2010 Digest Group) Court granted custody to Margaret with reasonable limitations on the part of
the father.
SUMMARY: Spouses Querubin residing in New Mexico, after a decree
of divorce was awarded joint custody in the form of equal visitation Silvestre, together with Querubina, left San Francisco on November of the
rights towards their child named Querubina which was placed in a same year, went to the Philippines and stayed in Cagayan, Ilocos Sur, with the
“neutral home”. Because Margaret started living with another man, intent of protecting the child from the effects of her mother's scandalous
Silvestre got custody through an interlocutory order and to protect the conduct. He wanted the child to be raised in a better environment.
child from the mom’s scandalous conduct, went to the Philippines.
Margaret had that interlocutory order modified to retaining her In 1950, Margaret, through counsel, presented to the CFI a petition for
custodial rights because she was now married and stable. She filed a habeas corpus for the custody of Querubina urder the interlocutory decree of
writ of habeas corpus to take back her child on the basis of the the California Court. She claims that under Art. 48 of Rule 39, the decree of
modified interlocutory order. SC disagrees. the Los Angeles Court, granting her the child's custody, must be complied
within the Philippines.]
Because the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be implemented in the
Philippines. Where the judgment is merely interlocutory, the ISSUES/HELD:
determination of the question by the Court which rendered it did not 1. WON the decree of a foreign court may be complied with in the
settle and adjudge finally the rights of the parties. Philippines.

In 1934, Silvestre Querubin, a Filipino, married petitioner Margaret Querubin, "The decree is by no means final. It is subject to change with the
in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 'They had a daughter, Querubina. circumstances. The first decree awarded the custody of the child to the father,
prohibiting the mother from taking the child to her (Margaret's) home
Margaret filed for divorce in 1948 alleging "mental cruelty." Silvestre filed a because of her adulterous relationship with another man. The decree was
countersuit for divorce alleging Margaret's infidelity. In 1949, the Superior amended when Margaret was not in Los Angeles.
Court of Los Angeles granted the divorce and awarded "joint custody" of the
child. Querubina was to be kept in a neutral home subject to reasonable visits Because the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be implemented in the
by both parties. Both parents were restrained from taking Querubina out of Philippines. Where the judgment is merely interlocutory, the determination of
California without the permission of the Court. the question by the Court which rendered it did not settle and adjudge finally
the rights of the parties.
In general, a decree of divorce awarding custody of the child to one of the children, Nellie and Philip, born in 1924 and 1933, respectively. Nellie took
spouses is respected by the Courts of other states "at the time and under the her primary course partly in Hongkong and partly in Cebu and was at the
circumstances of its rendition" but such a decree has no controlling effects in time of the trial a high school.
another state as to facts and conditions occurring subsequently to the date of
the decree; and the Court of another state may, in proper proceedings, award Petitioner believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution
custody otherwise upon proof of matters subsequent to the decree which and can speak and write English and the Cebu Visayan dialect. He is not a
justify the decree to the interest of the child. polygamist and has never been convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude. He has a sister who is married to a Filipino, Atty. Manuel Veloso,
In the case at bar, the circumstances have changed. Querubina is not in Los and he has no more relatives in China. Asked why he wanted to become a
Angeles, she is in Cagayan, Ilocos Sur, under her father's care. It is a long way Filipino citizen, he answered: "I have been here so long, I was educated here, I
from one place to the other. Neither can Margaret prove that she can pay the have so many Filipino friends and I love them and they love me too." He says
cost of passage for the minor. She is not a packet of cigarettes one can send by he has already decided to spend the rest of his life in the Philippines.
The Court of First Instance of Cebu granted the petition, and the case is now
Neither can she answer for Querubina's support, care and education. In here on appeal by the Government on the ground that petitioner has failed to
comparison, the father has shown both interest in the child and capacity to declare his intention to become a Filipino citizen one year before the filing of
provide for the needs of the child." his petition to prove at the trial that the laws of China permit Filipinos to
naturalize in that country.
G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949
As to the first ground, section 5 of the Revised Naturalization to declare his
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF YEE BO MANN FOR PHILIPPINE intention to become a Filipino citizen one year before the application. But
CITIZENSHIP. YEE BO MANN, petitioner-appellee, section 6 of the same law exempts from that requirement, among others,
vs. those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for 30 years or more
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant. before the filing of their application, provided "that the applicant has given
primary and secondary education to all his children in the public schools or in
REYES, J.: private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality." The Solicitor General construes this proviso as requiring
This is petition for naturalization. completion of both primary and secondary education by all the children of
the applicant. This court, however, has already held in other cases, among
Petitioner Yee Bo Mann was born in Canton, China, in 1898, of Chinese them that of Rafael Roa Yrostorza vs. Republic of the Philippines,1 G.R. No. L-
parents, who at an earlier date had become naturalized citizens of the United 1394, that enrollment in the proper school is sufficient compliance with the
States. In 1915 he immigrated to the Philippines and located in the City of law. Petitioner's case comes within this ruling, since his children are actually
Cebu, where he has resided continuosly since then. Studying in the public studying in school albeit they have not yet finished secondary education.
schools there and completing the primary and secondary courses, including a
four-year commercial course, he became a licensed public accountant in 1925 As to the other ground of appeal, it appears that petitioner has presented in
and has since then engaged in the practice of that profession in addition to evidence a translation of the Chinese naturalization law certified to be correct
being a general merchant and purchasing agent. In 1922 he married Helen by the Chinese Consulate General in Manila. The admissibility not conform to
Leu, an American citizen born in Hawaii, and with her came to have two section 41, Rule 123 of the Rule of Court. The objection is of no moment, since
this Court has already accepted it as a fact in previous naturalization cases The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China is a probate court
that the laws China permit Filipinos to naturalize in that country. must be proved. The law of China on procedure in the probate or allowance of
wills must also be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of the will
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without in China in 1931 should also be established by competent evidence. There is
special pronouncement as to costs. no proof on these points.

Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., Moreover, it appears that all the proceedings had in the municipal district
concur. court of Amoy were for the purpose of taking the testimony of two attesting
Reyes, J., I hereby certify that Chief Justice Moran voted for the affirmance of witnesses to the will and that the order of the municipal district court of
the judgment below. Amoy does not purport to probate the will.

Suntay vs. Suntay The order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China does not purport to
G.R. No. L-3807 and L-3088, July 31, 1954 probate or allow the will which was the subject of the proceedings. In view
thereof, the will and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been
In 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, done in accordance with the accepted basic and fundamental concepts and
diedin Amoy, China. He left real and personal properties in the Philippines principles followed in the probate and allowance of wills. Consequently, the
and a house in Amoy. During his lifetime, he married twice, the first wife was authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal district court of
Manuela Cruz, with whom he had several children. The second marriage was Amoy, China, cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings leading to the
with Maria Natividad Lim Brillian, with whom he had a son, petitioner Silvino probate of allowance of a will and therefore, the will referred to therein
Suntay. cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of

Intestate proceedings were instituted by the heirs from the first marriage.
While the second wife, the surviving widow who remained in Amoy China,
filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased
which was claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines on
November, 1929.

The petition wa sdenied due to the loss of the will before the hearing thereof.
After the pacific war, Silvino, claimed to have found among the records of his
father, a last will and testament in Chinese characters executed and signed by
the deceased on January, 1931 and probated in the Amoy District Court. He
filed a petition in the intestate proceedings for the probate of the will
executed in the Philippines on November 1929 or the will
executed in Amoy China on November, 1931.

ISSUE: Whether or not the will executed in Amoy, China can still be validly
probated in the Philippines