G.R NO.
L-55960 Both parties moved for partial reconsideration, which
NOVEMBER 24, 1988
PETITION TO GRANT OF LETTERS
OF ADMINISTRATION
PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS:
-YAO KEE, wife of Sy Kiat DAUGTHERS AND SONS
(China) OF SY KIAT:
-AIDA SY-GONZALES
SZE SOO WAH, eldest da
-MANUEL-SY
SZE LAI CHO -TERESITA SY-BERNABE
-RODOLFO SY
SY CHUN YEN
-COURT OF APPEALS
RESULTS:
CFI (PROBATE COURT): RULED IN FAVOR OF
OPPOSITORS YAO KEE
1. Sy Kiat is LEGALLY MARRIED to Yao
Kee
2. Sze Soo Wah, Sze Lai Cho and Sze Chun
Yen are the LEGITIMATE CHILDEN of
Yao Kee with Sy Mat.
3. Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita
Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy are the
ACKNOWEDLEGED ILLEGITIMATE
OFFSPRINGS of Sy Kiat with Asuncion
Gillego.
4. Sze Soo Wah as the administratrix of the
intestate estate of the deceased.
COURT OF APPEALS: RULED IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONERS SY-GONZALES AND OTHERS
1. Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita
Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy are
ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL
CHILDREN of the deceased with the
woman Asuncion Gillego (Live in partner)
2. Sze Soo Wah, Sze Lai Cho and Sze Chun
Yen ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL
CHILDREN of Sy Kiat with Chinese wife
Yao Kee (Yui Yip), since their alleged
marriage in China had not been proven to
be valid to the laws of the Chinese
People’s Republic of China.
3. Declaring the Deed of Sale executed by Sy
Kiat to Tomas Sy to be valid and excluded
from the estate of the deceased.
4. Affirmed Sze Soo Wah as the
administratrix of the intestate estate of the
deceased.
however denied by respondent court.
SUPREME COURT: RULED IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONERS SY-GONZALES AND OTHERS.
(AFFIRMED)
FACTS:
1. SY KIAT
a. Chinese National
b. Died on January 17, 1977 in Caloocan
c. Leaving real and personal properties
here in the Philippines worth P 300,
000.00 more or less
d. Intestate (left with no will)
e. MARRIED VIA CHINESE CUSTOM
to YAO KEE (YIU YIP) JANUARY
19, 1931. Married for 46 years.
f. Was COMMON LAW Husband and
Wife relationship without benefit of
marriage to Asuncion Gillego.
(Supported by the COMPROMISED
AGREEMENT BETWEEN SY KIAT
AND ASUNCION GILLEGO
(DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1974)
2. YAO KEE
a. Chinese National
b. Married via Local Chinese Custom
c. Supported by his younger brother,
Gan Ching, testimony.
d. Asuncion Gillego testified of being
aware that Sy Kiat was married to Yao
Kee according to Chinese custom and
Sy Kiat’s admission who whom is
married according to Chineses custom.
[CFI Decision, p. 17; Rollo p. 54]
e. Sy Kiat’s Master Card of Registered
Alien, married to Yao Kee, China,
1931 at China. [Exhibit SS-1]
f. Sy Kiat’s Alien Certification of
Registration, Married, Yao Kee
Chingkang, China. [Exhibit 4]
g. Embassy of the People’s Republic of
China “according to the information
available at the Embassy Mr. Sy Kiat
a Chinese national and Mrs. Yao Kee
alias Yui Yip also Chinese is married
on January 19, 1931 in Fukien,
People’s Republic of China. [Exhibit
5]
These Evidence may very well prove the Fact of
Marriage between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE OF
YAO KEE AND SY-KIAT VALID IN THE
PHILIPPINE JURISDICTION?

RULING/HELD: NO
However, the same DO NOT SUFFICE ESTABLISH
THE VALIDITY of said marriage in accordance with
Chinese law or custom.
CUSTOM
- A RULE OF CONDUCT FORMED BY
REPITITION OF ACTS, UNIFORMLY
OBSERVED (PRACTICED) AS A SOCIAL
RULE, LEGALLY BINDING AND
OBLIGATORY
([In the Matter of the Petition for Authority to
Continue Use of the Firm Name "Ozaeta,
Romulo, de Leon, Mabanta and Reyes", July
30, 1979, SCRA 3, 12 citing JBL Reyes & RC
Puno, Outline of Phil. Civil Law, Fourth Ed.,
Vol. 1, p. 7.])
- THE LAW REQUIRES that “a custom must
be proved as a fact, according to the rules of
evidence. [ARTICLE 12. CIVIL CODE]
- “a local custom as a source of right cannot be
considered by a court of justice unless such
custom is properly established by a competent
evidence like any other fact. [Patricia v. Orate,
7 Phil. 390, 395 (1970)]
- The same evidence, if not of a higher degree,
should be required by a foreign custom.
ARTICLE 71 OF CIVIL CODE
- Art. 71. 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. (Emphasis
supplied.)
1. EXISTENCE OF THE FOREIGN LAW
AS A QUESTION OF FACT.
2. THE ALLEGED FOREIGN MARRIAGE
BY CONVINCING EVIDENCE. [Adong
v. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43, 49
(1922)
RULE 130 OF SECTION 45 OF THE RULES OF
COURT.
- SEC. 45. Unwritten law.—The oral testimony
of witnesses, skilled therein, is admissible as
evidence of the unwritten law of a foreign
country, as are also printed and published
books of reports of decisions of the courts of
the foreign country, if proved to be commonly
admitted in such courts
PROOF OF WRITTEN FOREIGN LAW (RULE
132 UNDER SEC 25)
SEC. 25. Proof of public or official record.—An
official record or an entry therein, when admissible
for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is
not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that
such officer has the custody. If the office in which
the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy
or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
The Court has interpreted section 25 to include
competent evidence like the testimony of a witness
to prove the existence of a written foreign law
Petitioners did not present any competent evidence
relative to the law and custom of China on marriage.
The testimonies of Yao 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.
For failure to prove the foreign law or custom,
and consequently, the validity of the marriage
in accordance with said law or custom, the
marriage between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat cannot
be recognized in this jurisdiction.
Likewise on the record is the testimony of Asuncion
Gillego that Sy Kiat told her he has three daughters
with his Chinese wife, two of whom—Sook Wah and
Sze Kai Cho—she knows, and one adopted son [TSN,
December 6,1977, pp. 87-88.]
However, as petitioners failed to establish the marriage
of Yao Kee with Sy Mat according to the laws of
China, they cannot be accorded the status of legitimate
children but only that of acknowledged natural
children. Petitioners are natural children, it appearing
that at the time of their conception Yao Kee and Sy
Kiat were not disqualified by any impediment to marry
one another [See Art. 269, Civil Code.] And they are
acknowledged children of the deceased because of Sy
Kiat's recognition of Sze Sook Wah [Exhibit "3"] and
its extension to Sze Lai Cho and Sy Chun Yen who are
her sisters of the full blood [See Art. 271, Civil Code.
RELEVANT ARTICLES:
ART. 16 OF CIVIL CODE.