Yao Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales

Case Digest

G.R. No. L-55960 

November 24, 1988

Facts:

Sy Kiat, a Chinese national died 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, respondents filed a petition for the grant of letters of administration and appointment as administratrix one of the respondents.

The petition was opposed by the petitioners alleging that: (a) Yao Kee is the lawful wife of Sy Kiat whom he married in China; (b) the other oppositors are the legitimate children of the deceased with 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.

The lower court ruled that Yao Kee is the lawful wife of Sy Kiat and the other oppositors are the legitimate children.  The eldest was appointed as the administratrix of the estate of Sy Kiat.

However, Court of Appeals modified the decision and rendered that the legality of the marriage of Sy Kiat and Yao Kee had not been proven to be valid to the laws of China.

Issue:

Whether or not oral testimonies, such as those presented by the petitioners are sufficient to establish validity of foreign marriage?

Ruling:

To establish a valid foreign marriage two things must be proven, namely: (1) the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact; and (2) the alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence.  Without proofs of said requisites, the foreign marriage cannot be recognized in this country.

In this case the petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law and custom of China on marriage. The testimonies presented 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.

Garcia vs. Recio

Case Digest
G.R. No. 138322

Facts:

Respondent, a Filipino, was married to an Australian citizen. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. Two years later, a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian family court.

Sometime later respondent became an Australian citizen and married Petitioner -- a Filipina in Cabanatuan City. In their application for a marriage license, respondent was declared as single and Filipino.

Petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage.  Petitioner then filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy -- respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her. She claimed that she learned of respondent’s prior marriage to an Australian citizen only at a later time.

Respondent averred that, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution.  He contended that his first marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia; thus, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner.

About five years after the couple’s wedding and while the suit for the declaration of nullity was pending -- respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney, Australia.

Issue:

Whether or not the divorce decree obtained abroad may be ipso facto admitted as evidence in Philippine courts?

Ruling:

No. Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country.

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.