GR L 21076; (March, 1965) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
On June 28, 1961, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision finding petitioner Wong Woo Yiu to be legally married to Perfecto Blas, a Filipino citizen, and admitted her into the Philippines as a non-quota immigrant. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners on July 12, 1961. However, on June 28, 1962, a newly composed Board of Commissioners motu proprio rendered a new decision reversing the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision and ordering the petitioner’s exclusion. The new Board found her claim of being the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas was “bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship.” It noted discrepancies in the records, specifically that in Perfecto Blas’s 1947 entry proceedings, he declared he first visited China in 1935 and married the petitioner in 1936, contradicting her claim of a 1929 marriage. The petitioner’s motion for new trial was denied. She then filed a petition for mandamus (treated as certiorari) before the Court of First Instance of Manila, which granted her relief, declaring the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision valid and restraining her exclusion. The respondents appealed.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Board of Commissioners acted correctly in motu proprio reversing the petitioner’s admission, based on the validity of her claimed marriage to a Filipino citizen and the sufficiency of evidence thereof.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the Board of Commissioners’ decision to exclude the petitioner was correct. The Court found no documentary evidence to support the alleged 1929 marriage and noted inconsistencies in the statements of the petitioner and Perfecto Blas. Legally, the Court applied Article 15 of the Civil Code, stating that laws relating to family rights are binding on Filipino citizens even abroad. It noted that in 1929, Philippine law (Public Act 3412) required marriage solemnization by specific officials or clergy, and a village leader was not among them. While the Civil Code recognizes marriages celebrated abroad if valid under the foreign country’s law, the petitioner presented no proof of Chinese marriage law. Applying the rule that in the absence of such proof, foreign law is presumed to be the same as Philippine law, the claimed marriage before a village leader could not be recognized as valid in the Philippines. Therefore, the petitioner was not the lawful wife of a Filipino citizen and was properly excluded.