Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CONFLICT OF LAWS
G.R. Nos. 95122-23
no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there arises a presumption that it is the same as Philippine
law.
The lack of proof of Chinese law on the matter cannot be blamed on Santiago Gatchalian, much more on
respondent William Gatchalian who was then a twelve year-old minor. That fact is, as records indicate,
Santiago was not pressed by the Citizenship Investigation Board to prove the laws of China relating to
marriage, having been content with the testimony of Santiago that the Marriage Certificate was lost or
destroyed during the Japanese occupation of China. Neither was Francisco Gatchalians testimony
subjected to the same scrutiny by the Board of Special Inquiry. Nevertheless, the testimonies of Santiago
Gatchalian and Francisco Gatchalian before the Philippine consular and immigration authorities regarding
their marriages, birth and relationship to each other are not self-serving but are admissible in evidence as
statements or declarations regarding family relation, reputation or tradition in matters of pedigree (Sec.
34, Rule 130). Furthermore, this salutary rule of evidence finds support in substantive law. Thus, Art. 267
of the Civil Code provides: Art. 267. In the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final
judgment or possession of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the
Rules of Court and special laws (See also Art. 172 of the Family Code).
Consequently, the testimonies/affidavits of Santiago Gatchalian and Francisco Gatchalian aforementioned
are not self-serving but are competent proofs of filiation (Art. 172[2], Family Code).
Philippine law, following the lex loci celebrationis, adheres to the rule that a marriage formally valid where
celebrated is valid everywhere. Referring to marriages contracted abroad, Art. 71 of the Civil Code (now
Art. 26 of the Family Code) provides that all marriages performed outside of 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 And any doubt as to the validity of the matrimonial unity and the extent as
to how far the validity of such marriage may be extended to the consequences of the coverture is
answered by Art. 220 of the Civil Code in this manner: In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the
solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the
indissolubility of marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of property during the
marriage, the authority of parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the
family in case of unlawful aggression. Bearing in mind the processual presumption enunciated in
Miciano and other cases, he who asserts that the marriage is not valid under our law bears the burden of
proof to present the foreign law.
Interestingly and with reasons, Justice Florentino Feliciano strongly registered his dissent in the
aforequoted ruling by stating that the rule that a foreign marriage valid in accordance with the law of the
place where it was performed shall be valid also in the Philippines, cannot begin to operate until after the
marriage performed abroad and its compliance with the requirements for validity under the marriage law
of the place where performed, are first shown as factual matters (Ibid., pages 913-914).