EN BANC

[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.

Platon A. Baysa for petitioner-appellee.

Solicitor General for respondents-appellants.

SYLLABUS

1. ALIENS; ALIEN WOMAN PROPERLY DENIED ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINES

IN ABSENCE OF PROOF OF MARRIAGE TO FILIPINO. — An alien woman is properly
denied admission to the Philippines where the only basis in support of her claim that
she is the wife of a Philippine citizen is a mass of oral and documentary evidence bereft
of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship.
2. ID.; ID.; PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW ON MARRIAGE NECESSARY IN ORDER
TO GIVE VALIDITY THERETO. — No validity can be given to the contention that a
marriage contracted outside of the Philippines which is valid under the law of the
country in which it was celebrated is also valid in the Philippines, where no proof was
presented relative to the law of marriage in such foreign country.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION AS TO LAW OF MARRIAGE IN ABSENCE OF
PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW. — In the absence of proof of the law of a foreign country on a
marriage celebrated therein, it should be presumed that It is the same as our own.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; MARRIAGE BEFORE VILLAGE LEADER NOT VALID IN THE
PHILIPPINES. — Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the
o cers mentioned therein, and a village leader is not one of them, a marriage so
celebrated in a foreign country cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction, in the absence
of proof of the foreign law on such marriages.

DECISION

BAUTISTA ANGELO , J : p

On June 28, 1961, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision nding
petitioner to be legally married to Perfecto Blas and admitting her into the country as a
non-quota immigrant. This decision was a rmed 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 reversing that of the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 and ordering petitioner to
be excluded from the country. On August 9, 1962, petitioner led a motion for new trial
requesting an opportunity to clarify certain points taken in the decision, but the same
was denied for lack of merit. Whereupon, on September 14, 1962, petitioner initiated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the instant petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Court of First
Instance of Manila which incidentally was considered by it as a petition for certiorari.

In due time, respondents led their answer, and, after the parties had submitted a
written stipulation of facts, attaching thereto some documentary evidence, the court a
quo rendered decision granting in toto the relief prayed for. Thus, the court declared
valid the decision rendered by the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 while it restrained
respondents from excluding petitioner from the country. Respondents interposed the
present appeal.
It appears that in the proceedings held before the Board of Special Inquiry
sometime in June, 1961, petitioner declared that she came to the Philippines in 1961
for the rst time to join her husband Perfecto Blas to whom she was married in
Chingkang, China on January 15, 1929; that they had several children all of whom are
now in the Philippines; that their marriage was celebrated by one Chua Tio, a village
leader; that on June 28, 1961 the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision
nding, among others, that petitioner is legally married to Perfecto B]as, a Filipino
citizen, and admitted her into the country as a non-quota immigrant; that this decision
was a rmed by the Board of Commissioners of which petitioner was duly noti ed by
the Secretary of said Board in a letter dated July 12, 1961; that in a motu proprio
decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners composed of a new set of members
dated June 28, 1962 the latter found that petitioner's claim that she is the lawful wife of
Perfecto Blas was without basis in evidence as it was "bereft of substantial proof of
husband-wife relationship"; that said Board further held that, it appearing that in the
entry proceedings of Perfecto Blas had on January 23, 1947 he declared that he rst
visited China in 1935 and married petitioner in 1936, it could not possibly sustain her
claim that she married Perfecto Blas in 1929; that in an a davit dated August 9, 1962
Perfecto Blas claimed that he went to China in 1929, 1935 and 1941, although in his re-
entry declaration he admitted that he rst went to China in 1935, then in 1937, then in
1939, and lastly in 1941; and that Perfecto Blas in the same a davit likewise claimed
that he rst went to China when he was merely four years old so that computed from
his date of birth in 1908 it must have been in 1912.
In view of the discrepancies found in the statements made by petitioner and her
alleged husband Perfecto Blas in the several investigations conducted by the
immigration authorities concerning their alleged marriage before a village leader in
China in 1929, coupled with the fact that the only basis in support of petitioner's claim
that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas is "a mass of oral and documentary evidence
bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship", the Board of Commissioners
motu proprio reviewed the record concerning the admission of petitioner into the
country resulting in its nding that she was improperly admitted. Thus, said Board
made the following comment:
"The only basis in support of the claim that she is the wife of Perfecto
Blas is a mass of oral and documentary evidence bereft of substantial proof
of husband-wife relationship. She relies on the records of Perfecto Blas in
connection with his cancellation case and the testimony of the supposed
children in the previous admission proceeding. But this claim is belied by the
admission of Perfecto Blas himself, in the hearing conducted by a board of
special inquiry in connection with his entry on January 23, 1947, that he was
married to one Ng Yo in Ki Say, Chingkang, China in 1936 his rst visit there
being in 1935; he could not therefore have been married to herein applicant
in 1929."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The above comment cannot be disputed, it nding support in the record. 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 pretended marriage in China
in 1929. This claim can not also be entertained under our law on family relations. Thus,
Article 15 of our new Civil Code provides that laws relating to family rights or to the
status of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living
abroad, and it is well-known that in 1929 in order that a marriage celebrated in the
Philippines may be valid it 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 Philippine Library and Museum (Public Act No.
3412, Section 2). Even if we assume, therefore, that the marriage of petitioner to
Perfecto Blas before a village leader is valid in China, the same is not one of those
authorized in our country.
But it may be contended that under Section 4 of General Order No. 68, as
reproduced in Section 19 of Act No. 3613, which is now Article 71 of our new Civil
Code, a marriage contracted outside of the Philippines which is valid under the law of
the country in which it was celebrated is also valid in the Philippines. But no validity can
be given to this contention because no proof was presented relative to the law of
marriage in China. Such being the case, 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.
"The statutes of other countries or estates must be pleaded and
proved the same as any other fact. Courts can not take judicial notice of
what such laws are. In the absence of pleading and proof the laws of a
foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our own." (Yam
Ka Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil., 46).

"In the absence of anything to the contrary as to the character of a

foreign law, it will be presumed to be the same as the domestic law on the
same subject." (Lim and Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil., 472).

"In the absence of evidence to the contrary foreign laws on a

particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines."
(Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil., 867).

Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the o cers
mentioned therein, and a village leader is not one of them, it is clear that petitioner's
marriage, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.
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.
Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com