Yao Kee, Sze Sook Wah, Sze Lai Cho, and Sy Chun Yen, petitioners, versus Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita Sy-Bernabe, Rodolfo Sy, and Honorable Court of Appeals, respondents.
No. L-55960 November 24, 1988
Facts:
Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died on January 17, 1977 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, Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy filed a petition alleging among others that:
a) They are the children of the deceased with Asuncion Gillego;
b) To their knowledge Sy Kiat died intestate;
c) They do not recognize Sy Kiat’s marriage to Yao Kee nor the filiation of her children to him; and
d) They nominate Aida Sy-Gonzales for appointment as administratriz of the intestate estate of the deceased.
The petition was opposed by Yao Kee, Sze Sook Wah, Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun Chen who alleged that:
a) Yao Kee is the lawful wife of Sy Kiat who he married on January 19, 1931 in China;
b) The other oppositors are the legitimate children of the deceased 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.
Yao Kee testified that she was married to Sy Kiat on January 19, 1931 in Fookien, China; that she does not have a marriage certificate because the practice during that time was for elders to agree upon the bethrotal of their children, and in her case, her elder brother was the one who contracted or entered into an agreement with the parents of her husband; that she and her husband have been living in Fookien, China before he went to the Philippines; that in China, the custom is that there is a go-between, a sort of marriage broker who is known to both parties who would talk to the parents of the bride-to-be agree to have the groom-to-be their son-in-law, then they agree on a date as an engagement day; that on the wedding day, the document would be signed by the parents of both parties but there is no solemnizing officer as is known in the Philippines; that the parties do not sign the document themselves; and that she and Sy Kiat were married for 46 years already and the document was left in China and she doubt if that document can still be found now.
The testimony of Gan Ching, the younger brother of Yao Kee, that he attended the marriage of his sister with Sy Kiat and that no marriage certificate is issued by the Chinese government, a document signed by the parents and elders of the parties being sufficient. Statements were made by Asuncion Gillego when she testified that a) Sy Kiat was married to Yao Kee according to a Chinese custom.
Issue:
Whether or not the marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee in China is valid.
Held:
The law requires that a custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. A local custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properly established by competent evidence like any other fact.
Article 71 of the Civil Code states that: “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.
The testimonies of Yao Kee 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. The marriage of Yao Kee and Sy Kiat cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as any other fact.
As petitioners failed to establish the marriage of Yao Kee with Sy Kiat according to the laws of China, they cannot be accorded the status of legitimate children but only of acknowledged natural children.
