G.R. No. L-55960 November 24, 1988
YAO KEE, SZE SOOK WAH, SZE LAI CHO, and SY CHUN YEN, petitioners, vs. AIDA SY-GONZALES, MANUEL SY, TERESITA SY-BERNABE, RODOLFO SY, and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died intestate in the Philippines in 1977. Two sets of claimants emerged. The petitioners, Yao Kee and her children, claimed to be the lawful wife and legitimate children of the deceased, asserting a marriage celebrated in China in 1931. The private respondents, Aida Sy-Gonzales and her siblings, claimed to be the children of Sy Kiat with Asuncion Gillego and contested the validity of the Chinese marriage. The probate court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding the marriage to Yao Kee valid and appointing Sze Sook Wah as administratrix. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified this ruling. It declared the private respondents as acknowledged natural children of Sy Kiat. Crucially, it also declared the petitioners as merely acknowledged natural children, finding that the legality of the alleged marriage between Sy Kiat and Yao Kee in China had not been sufficiently proven under the laws of the People’s Republic of China.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) declaring the marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee as not proven valid under Chinese law, and (2) declaring the private respondents as the natural children of Sy Kiat.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court applied the settled rule that the validity of a marriage celebrated in a foreign country is governed by the law of the place where it was contracted (lex loci celebrationis). The petitioners, as the parties asserting the validity of the foreign marriage, carried the burden of proving both the existence of the foreign law and its conformity with the alleged marriage. The Court found that the petitioners failed to discharge this burden. Their evidence, consisting of testimonies about Chinese custom and a “marriage agreement” document, was insufficient. The Court emphasized that foreign laws are not judicial facts; they must be alleged and proved like any other fact. Since the petitioners did not present competent evidence, such as the text of the Chinese law or expert testimony thereon, the presumed validity of the marriage could not stand. The processual presumption—that foreign law is the same as Philippine law in the absence of proof—was deemed inapplicable to marriage validity, as Philippine law expressly subjects foreign marriages to the law of the country where they were solemnized. Consequently, the marriage was not proven valid, and the children from that union could not be considered legitimate. On the second issue, the Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s factual finding that the private respondents were the acknowledged natural children of Sy Kiat, a finding supported by evidence. The Court also addressed a procedural matter, noting that the question of filiation was properly resolved as an incident in the existing intestate proceedings to prevent multiplicity of suits.