Yao Kee v.

Sy-Gonzales
Facts:

Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died on January 17, 1977 in Caloocan City where he was then residing,
leaving behind real and personal properties here in the Philippines worth P300,000.00 more or less.

Thereafter, Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy filed a petition alleging
among others that:

a) They are the children of the deceased with Asuncion Gillego;

b) To their knowledge Sy Kiat died intestate;
c) They do not recognize Sy Kiat’s marriage to Yao Kee nor the filiation of her children to him; and
d) They nominate Aida Sy-Gonzales for appointment as administratriz of the intestate estate of the
deceased.

The petition was opposed by Yao Kee, Sze Sook Wah, Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun Chen who alleged that:

a) Yao Kee is the lawful wife of Sy Kiat who he married on January 19, 1931 in China;
b) The other oppositors are the legitimate children of the deceased Yao Kee; and
c) Sze Sook Wah is the eldest among them and is competent, willing and desirous to become the
administratrix of the estate of Sy Kiat.

Yao Kee testified that she was married to Sy Kiat on January 19, 1931 in Fookien, China; that she
does not have a marriage certificate because the practice during that time was for elders to agree
upon the bethrotal of their children, and in her case, her elder brother was the one who contracted
or entered into an agreement with the parents of her husband; that she and her husband have been
living in Fookien, China before he went to the Philippines; that in China, the custom is that there is a
go-between, a sort of marriage broker who is known to both parties who would talk to the parents
of the bride-to-be agree to have the groom-to-be their son-in-law, then they agree on a date as an
engagement day; that on the wedding day, the document would be signed by the parents of both
parties but there is no solemnizing officer as is known in the Philippines; that the parties do not sign
the document themselves; and that she and Sy Kiat were married for 46 years already and the
document was left in China and she doubt if that document can still be found now.

The testimony of Gan Ching, the younger brother of Yao Kee, that he attended the marriage of his
sister with Sy Kiat and that no marriage certificate is issued by the Chinese government, a document
signed by the parents and elders of the parties being sufficient. Statements were made by Asuncion
Gillego when she testified that a) Sy Kiat was married to Yao Kee according to a Chinese custom.

Issue:

Whether or not the marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee in China is valid.

Held:

The law requires that a custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. A local
custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properly
established by competent evidence like any other fact.

Article 71 of the Civil Code states that: “All marriages performed outside the Philippines in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed, and valid there as
such, shall also be valid in this country, except bigamous, polygamous or incestuous marriages as
determined by Philippine law.

The testimonies of Yao Kee and Gan Ching cannot be considered as proof of China’s law or custom
on marriage not only because they are self-serving evidence, but more importantly, there is no
showing that they are competent to testify on the subject matter. The marriage of Yao Kee and Sy
Kiat cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign
laws. They must be alleged and proved as any other fact.

As petitioners failed to establish the marriage of Yao Kee with Sy Kiat according to the laws of China,
they cannot be accorded the status of legitimate children but only of acknowledged natural children.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS v. DELA ROSA

Summary:

The Commission of Immigration issued a warrant of arrest to William for alleged violation of
Immigration laws, but the Ct held that William is a Filipino citizen, not a Chinese citizen. The Ct
reached this conclusion after applying diff. presumptions: processual presumption, presumption of
validity of marriage and legitimacy.

DOCTRINE:

There being no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there arises a presumption that it
is the same as PH law.

facts of the case (A/N: case previously assigned in our Admin class)

In 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized by the Bureau of
Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his natural mother, Marciana
Gatchalian. Santiago has a wife, Chu Gim Tee, and 5 children: Jose, Gloria, Francisco, Elena and
Benjamin.

In 1961, private respondent William (then 12 y.o.) arrived in Manila from Hong Kong together with
Gloria, Francisco and Johnson. William and Johnson are Francisco’s sons. After investigation, the
Board of Special Inquiry No.1 rendered a decision admitting William and his companions as Filipino
citizens. William was issued Identification Certificate No. 16135.

In 1962, then Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9 setting aside all decisions rendered by
the Board of Commissioners on appeal or on review motu proprio by the Board of Special Inquiry.
The Memo also directed the Board of Commissioners to review prior cases decision, including
William’s case. Consequently, the Board reviewed and eventually reversed the decision of the Board
of Special Inquiry. A warrant of exclusion was thereafter issued. The Commission of Immigration
sought to deport William but he opposed the same resulting in so many procedural appeals and
processes.

In 1970, the acting director of the NBI wrote the Secretary of Justice recommending that William be
charged with violation of Sec. 37 (a), pars. 1 and 2, in relation to Secs. 45 (c), and (d) and (e) of CA
No. 613, as amended, also known as the Immigration Act of 1940. The Secretary of Justice indorsed
said recommendation to the Commissioner for Immigration for investigation and immediate action.
In 1990, the Commission on Immigration ordered the arrest of William who was released upon
posting P200,000 cash bond. He filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC of
Manila. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss which was denied.

Issues & Ratio

1. WON William should be declared as a Filipino citizen. YES.

Petitioners’ Argument: Santiago’s marriage in China as well as Francisco’s, also in China, were not
supported by an evidence other than their own self-serving testimony nor any showing what the
laws of China were. For the said marriages to be valid in this country, it should have been shown that
they were valid by the laws of China. There being none, the conclusion is that the marriages are not
valid. Consequently, Santiago’s children including Francisco, followed their mother’s Chinese
citizenship. Similarly, William should follow his mother’s Chinese citizenship.

Ct: No, as held in the Miciano case, apply processual presumption.

The lack of proof of Chinese law cannot be blamed on Santiago since he was not pressed by
the Citizenship Investigation Board at the time he was allowed entry. They were content to accept
the testimony that the marriage certificate was lost during the Japanese occupation in China. Much
more that it cannot be blamed on William, who was merely 12 y.o. then.

William’s legitimacy is sufficiently proven

Nevertheless, their testimonies as to their marriages, births and relationship to each other
are admissible as statements or declarations regarding family reputation or tradition in matters of
pedigree (Sec. 34 Rule 130).

Furthermore, pursuant to Art.267 of CC:

Art. 267. In the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final judgment or possession of
status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws. (117a)

Such testimonies are competent proof of filiation under Art.172(2) of FC:

Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)

Santiago’s and Francisco’s marriages were also valid

The Philippine law following lex loci celebrationis adheres to the rule that a marriage formally valid
where celebrated is valid everywhere. Referring to marriages contracted abroad, Art. 71 of CC (now
Art. 26 of FC) provides that
"[a]ll marriages performed outside of the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country [. . .]"

And any doubt as to the validity of the matrimonial unity and the extent as to how far the validity of
such marriage may be extended to the consequences of the coverture is answered by Art. 220 of CC
in this manner:

"In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law
or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the
legitimacy of children, the community of property during marriage, the authority of parents over
their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful
aggression.".

Bearing in mind the "processual presumption" enunciated in Miciano and other cases, he who
asserts that the marriage is not valid under our law bears the burden of proof to present the foreign
law.

William is a Filipino citizen under our Constitution

Having declared the assailed marriages as valid, William follows the citizenship of his father
Francisco, a Filipino, as a legitimate child of the latter. Francisco, in turn is likewise a Filipino being
the legitimate child of Santiago who is admittedly a Filipino citizen whose Philippine citizenship was
recognized by the Bureau of Immigration in an order dated 1960.

Finally, respondent William belongs to the class of Filipino citizens contemplated under the
Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 1, Article IV. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution xxx

Since William’s admission in the PH, he has been living as a Filipino citizen

Since his admission as a Filipino citizen in 1961, William has continuously resided in the Philippines.
He married Ting Dee Hua in 1973 with whom he has 4 minor children. The marriage contract shows
that said respondent is a Filipino. He holds passports and earlier passports as a Filipino. He is a
registered voter of Valenzuela, Metro Manila where he has long resided and exercised his right of
suffrage. He engaged in business in the Philippines since 1973 and is the director/officer of the
International Polymer Corp. and Ropeman International Corp. as a Filipino. He is a taxpayer.
Respondent claims that the companies he runs and in which he has a controlling investment
provides livelihood to 4,000 employees and approximately 25,000 dependents. He continuously
enjoyed the status of Filipino citizenship and discharged his responsibility as such until petitioners
initiated the deportation proceedings against him.

Garcia v. Recio
FACTS:
Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in Malabon, Rizal.
They lived as husband and wife in Australia. However, an Australian family court issued purportedly
a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of Rederick and Editha.

Recio married Grace J. Garcia at Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Since October
22, 1995, the couple lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. While they
were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided in accordance with their Statutory
Declarations secured in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.

Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy on March 3,
1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997 of Rederick’s marriage with Editha Samson.

ISSUE:

Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Recio is admissible as evidence to prove his legal
capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

RULING:

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A marriage
between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Articles 15
and 17 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the
Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.[26] A divorce obtained
abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is
consistent with the irrespective nation allows.

A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof are concerned, can be
made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. Therefore,
before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove
the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation
solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.

Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a
public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof
attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the
Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or
consular officer in the Philippine Foreign Service stationed in the foreign country in which the record
is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued was valid and
recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized Australian. However, there is
absolutely no evidence that proves respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner though the
former presented a divorce decree. The said decree, being a foreign document was inadmissible to
court as evidence primarily because it was not authenticated by the consul/embassy of the country
where it will be used.

Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City to receive
or trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner and thus
free him on the ground of bigamy.