Ching Huat v.

Co Heong
G.R. No. L-1211 January 30, 1947 HILADO, J.
petitioners CHING HUAT
respondents CO HEONG [ALIAS CO HONG, CO YONG]
summary Daughter of Huat married Heung. He filed for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas
Corpus in order to get custody of her child. Court held daughter was validly married
to Heong and as a result, she was emancipated and should live with her husband.

facts of the case

Huat prays for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing any lawful officer to take from Heong and
produce before the Court his daughter Maria Ching and require the respondent to justify his right to the custody
of said minor (15 years old). Further, he seeks that he be awarded said custody of his child.

Huat alleges that taking advantage of his confidential and spiritual relation with Maria Ching as her
godfather, Heung persuaded and induced her by means of stick, promises and cajolery, to leave the parental
home and to elope with him to Plaridel, Bulacan where they were married. Further, he alleges that Heung had
been previously married in China to Gue Min, said marriage being said to be subsisting at the time respondent
married Maria Ching. Heung on the other hand alleges that they were married in accordance with Philippine
law.

issue
WON Huat retains the custody over her minor child? (NO)

ratio

The alleged marriage of respondent to Gue Min in China has not been proven. There is no allegation in the
petition, much less is there evidence, to show that the said supposed marriage was performed in accordance
with the laws of China in force at the time of its supposed performance, nor even what those laws were. Court
cited Sec. 19 of CC1 which is substantially the same as Sec. IV of the former Philippine Marriage Law2.

As applied: the Philippine marriage between said respondent and Maria Ching before the Justice of the Peace
of Plaridel, Bulacan, is undisputed. It is also beyond question that marriage was contracted by a man much over
16 years old with a girl 15 years old.

Note: If the supposed prior Chinese marriage had been sufficiently proven, then in order that the subsequent Philippine marriage
could be valid, it would have been necessary either [a] that the Chinese marriage should have been previously annulled or dissolved; or
[b] that the first wife of respondent should have been absent for 7 consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the
respondent having news of the absentee being alive; or [c] that the absentee should have been generally considered as dead and believed
to be so by respondent at the time of contracting the subsequent marriage, in either of which last two cases the subsequent marriage will
be valid until declared null and void by a competent court, while in the first it will be valid without this limitation. However, the complete
absence of proof of the supposed former Chinese marriage makes Sections 29 and 30 of the Marriage inapplicable.

Maria Ching having been validly married on June 21, 1946, she became emancipated. This emancipation
brought about the loss by the father of the parental authority that he claims. Further, Article 48 of Chapter V of
the Spanish Marriage Law of 1870, whose Articles 44 to 8 were, and are then partly, in force in the Philippines
provides that the wife has the duty of living in her husband's company and of following him to wherever he
transfers his domicile or residence.

1 "Sec. 19. Marriages performed abroad. - All marriages performed outside of the Philippine Islands in accordance with the laws in force in
the country where they were performed and valid there as such, shall also be valid in these Islands."
2 "Sec. IV. All marriages contracted without these Islands, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were

contracted, are valid in these Island."

1