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

 

G.R. No. L-21076 March 31, 1965 WONG 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 proceedings held before the Board of Special Inquiry sometime sometime in June, 1961, Wong Woo Yiu (petitioner) declared that 1) she came to the Philippines in 1961 for the first time to join her husband Perfecto Blas, a Filipino Citizen, to whom she was married in Chingkang, China on January 15, 1929, 2) that they had several children all of whom are not in the Philippines; Philippines; 3) that their marriage was celebrated celebrated by one Chua Tio, a village village leader. On Ju June ne 28, 1961 1961 the Boar Board d of Spec Specia iall Inqui Inquiry ry No. 3 rende rendere red d a de deci cisi sion on fi findi nding ng petitioner to be legally married to Perfecto Blas, thus declaring legal her admission into the country. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners on July 12, 1961 of which petitioner was duly informed in a letter sent on the same date by the Secretary of the Board. However, on June 28, 1962, the same Board of Commissioners, but composed entirely of 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, after disc discre repa panc ncie ies s were were found found in the the st state ateme ment nts s ma made de by peti petiti tion oner er an and d her her alle allege ged d husband hus band during during severa severall invest investiga igatio tions ns conduc conducted ted by the immig immigrat ration ion authori authoritie ties s conc concer erni ning ng the the al alle leged ged marr marria iage ge befor before e a vi vill llage age leade leaderr in Chin China a in 1929, 1929, thus thus concluding that the petitioner’s claim that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas was wi with thout out basi basis s in evid eviden ence ce as it was "ber "beref eftt of su subst bstant antia iall pr proo ooff of husb husban and-w d-wif ife e relationship." Held:

 The above revocation of decision cannot be disputed, it finding support in the record and investigation. Indeed, not only is there no documentary evidence to support the alleged marriage of petitioner to Perfecto Blas but the record is punctured with so many inconsistencies which cannot but lead one to doubt their veracity concerning the said marriage in China on 1929. Even if we assume, therefore, therefore, that the marriage of petit petitioner ioner to Perfecto Perfecto Blas before a village vill age leader is valid in China, the same is not one of those authorized in our country. country. (In (In orde orderr that that a ma marr rria iage ge cele celebr brat ated ed in the Phil Philip ippi pine nes s ma may y be va vali lid d it must must be solemnized 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 the Phil Ph ilip ippi pine ne Li Libr brar ary y and Muse Museum um – Publ Public ic Act Act 3412, 3412, Se Sect ctio ion n 2) Si Sinc nce e our law law only only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the officers mentioned therein, and a vil villag lage e leader leader is not one of them, them, it is cl clear ear that petiti petitione oner's r's marri marriage age cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. Also, since no proof was prese presented nted relative relative to the law on marriage marriage in China, we should apply the general rule that in the absence of proof of the law of a foreign country, it

 

should be presumed that it is the same as our own, and Article 71 of the Civil Code (a marria mar riage ge contra contracte cted d outsid outside e of the Phili Philippi ppines nes which is valid valid under under the law of the country in which it was celebrated is also valid in the Philippines) cannot be invoked. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. As a corollary, the petition for  mandamus filed before the court a quo is hereby dismissed. No costs.