Ching Huat vs. Co Heong, 77 Phil.

988, January 30, 1947

Docket Number: No. L-1211
Ponente: HILADO
FACTS:
Petitioner, Ching Huat filed a writ of habeas corpus to produce his minor child,
Maria Ching alias Avelina Ching and require respondent, Co Heong, to justify his right
to the custody over his child.
Huat alleged Co Heong for persuading and inducing his 15 years old child, Maria
Ching to elope with the latter to Plaridel, Bulacan, where they married the following day
before the Justice of the Peace. Huat further alleged that respondent has been married
to Gue Min, and that such marriage was contracted in China is still subsisting.
Respondent however argues that he and Maria Ching were legally married, that
they met the essential requisites for marriage hence a Local Civil Registrar certificate to
attest their marriage was issued.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner retains his right to the custody of his minor daughter.
RULING:
No. The marriage between Maria Ching and respondent was valid, hence, the
marriage of a Maria Ching emancipates her and brings about the loss by the father of his
parental authority.
Because the marriage was contracted by a man much over 16 years old with a girl
15 years old (Act No. 3613, Section 2) and neither of whom was included in any of the
exceptions mentioned in Section 28 nor in Section 29 of the same Act, both respondent
and Ching’s civil marriage by the Justice of the Peace is therefore undisputed. On the
other hand, Article 48 of Chapter V of the Spanish Marriage Law of 1870, whose articles
44 to 78 are now partly in force in the Philippines states that the wife has the duty,
among others, of living in her husband's company and of following him to wherever he
transfers his domicile or residence.
As for the alleged Marriage abroad, Act No. 3613, Section 19 of the Marriage Law
provides that “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." In this case, there is no competent testimony as to
what the laws of China concerning marriage were and there is lacking proof to produce a
moral conviction of the existence of the alleged prior Chinese marriage. The complete
absence of proof of the supposed former Chinese marriage makes Sections 29 and 30 of
the Marriage Law inapplicable. In these circumstances, every presumption is in favor of
the validity and good faith of the Philippine marriage, and sound reason requires that
the marriage of Heong and Ching be not impugned and discredited by the alleged prior
marriage.
Petition is hereby, dismissed, with costs to petitioner.