Adong vs.

Cheong Seng Gee Case Digest

Mora Adong, petitioner and appellant vs. Cheong Seng Gee, opponent and appellant 

FACTS: Cheong Boo, a native of China died in Zamboanga, Philippine Islands on August 5,

1919 and left property worth nearly P100,000 which is now being claimed by two parties - (1)
Cheong Seng Gee who alleged that he was a legitimate child by marriage contracted by
Cheong Boo with Tan Bit in China in 1985, and (2) Mora Adong who alleged that she had been
lawfully married to Cheong Boo in 1896 in Basilan, Philippine Islands and had two daughters
with the deceased namely Payang and Rosalia. The conflicting claims to Cheong Boo’s estate
were ventilated in the lower court that ruled that Cheong Seng Gee failed to sufficiently
establish the Chinese marriage through a mere letter testifying that Cheong Boo and Tan Bit
married each other but that because Cheong Seng Gee had been admitted to the Philippine
Islands as the son of the deceased, he should share in the estate as a natural child. With
reference to the allegations of Mora Adong and her daughters, the trial court reached the
conclusion that the marriage between Adong and Cheong Boo had been adequately proved but
that under the laws of the Philippine Islands it could not be held to be a lawful marriage and
thus the daughter Payang and Rosalia would inherit as natural children. The lower court
believes that Mohammedan marriages are not valid under the Philippine Island’s laws this as
an Imam as a solemnizing officer and under Quaranic laws. 

ISSUES: Whether or not the Chinese marriage between Cheong Boo and Tan Dit is valid
Whether or not the Mohammedan marriage between Cheong Boo and Mora Adong is valid
RULING: The Supreme Court found the (1) Chinese marriage not proved and Chinaman Cheong
Seng Gee has only the rights of a natural child while (2) it found the Mohammedan marriage
to be proved and to be valid, thus giving to the widow Mora Adong and the legitimate children
Payang and Rosalia the rights accruing to them under the law. 

HELD: 

(FOR STATCON) The Supreme Court held that marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil
contract but it is a new relation, an instruction in the maintenance of which the public is
deeply interested. The presumption as to marriage is that every intendment of the law leans
toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed,
in the absence of counter-presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married.
The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they
thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant violation of decency
of the law. As to retroactive force, marriage laws is in the nature of a curative provision
intended to safeguard society by legalizing prior marriages. Public policy should aid acts
intended to validate marriages and should retard acts intended to invalidate marriages. This
as for public policy, the courts can properly incline the scales of their decision in favor of that
solution which will most effectively promote the public policy. That is the true construction
which will best carry legislative intention into effect. 

(FOR PERSONS) Sec. IV of the Marriage law provides that “all marriages contracted outside
the islands, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were
contracted, are valid in these islands. To establish a valid foreign marriage pursuant to this
comity provision, it is first necessary to prove before the courts of the Islands the existence of
the foreign law as a question of fact, and it is then necessary to prove the alleged foreign
marriage by convincing evidence. A Philippine marriage followed by 23 years of uninterrupted
marital life, should not be impugned and discredited, after the death of the husband through
an alleged prior Chinese marriage, “save upon proof so clear, strong and unequivocal as to
produce a moral conviction of the existence of such impediment.” A marriage alleged to have
 been contracted in China and proven mainly by a so-called matrimonial letter held not to be
valid in the Philippines.

ADONG VS. CHEONG SENG GEE 43 PHIL.  43

Facts:
A Chinese national, Cheong Boo, died intestate in the Philippines. His (deceased) property in
the Philippines is being claimed by; a) Respondent, Seng Gee, who alleged to be his son from
his first marriage with Tan Bit in China, and b) Petitioner, Mora Adong, deceased lawfully
married wife in Basilan with 2 daugthers. CFI states that deceased Seng Gee failed to prove
the validity of the marriage of his parents through his uncle’s letter, however, he is entitled
to the estate of his father because he has been admitted to the Philippines as a natural child
of the deceased, Cheong Boo. On the other hand, the 2 daughters of Cheong and Petitioner
Mora Adong are entitled also to the shares of the estate.

Issue: W/N the marriage between Cheong boo and tan bit in China is valid here in the
Philippines.

Held/Ratio Decidendi:
NO! There is no competent testimony as to what the laws of China in the province of an Bit.
Section IV of the Marriage Law (Gen. Order #65) provides that “All marriage contracted
without these islands, which would be valid by laws of the country in which the same were
contracted, are valid in these islands”. To established a valid marriage, it must be proven
before the court of the islands the existence of the law as a question of fact; and must be
supported by convincing evidence in which Respondent Cheong Seng Gee failed to provide.

My Personal note:

 This is in relation with Art. 3 of the Civil Code: “Ignorance of the law excuse no one
from compliance therewith” (Ignorancia Legis Neminem Excusat)
 Ignorance of fact is not Ignorance of the Law.
 Art 3. applies only to domestic laws
 Doctrine of Processual Presumption = Foreign law must be proven in order to be
recognize here in the Philippines.