5. Sec.

241

MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST v. GUERRERO ISSUE: WoN there are genuine issues of fact that necessitate formal trial—YES.
February 19, 2003 | Carpio, J. | Petition for Review under Rule 45| Judicial Notice
RULING: Petition DENIED. There being substanstial triable issues, motion for
partial summary judgment is denied.
PETITIONER: Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., and/or Chemical Bank
RESPONDENT: Rafael Ma. Guerrero
RATIO:
SUMMARY: Respondent Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against 1. A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of
petitioner Bank regarding his bank account. The Bank claimed that his account is evidence as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived so as
governed by New York law which does not permit any claim except actual not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Walden affidavit shows that the
damages. The Bank moved for a partial summary judgment which was supported facts and material allegations as pleaded by the parties are disputed and
by an affidavit by a NY Atty. claiming that the governing law is New York law
as stipulated by Guerrero’s bank account. SC ruled that there is a need for a trial there   are   substantial   triable   issues   necessitating   a   formal   trial.
as the Walden affidavit shows that the facts and allegations were disputed. Resolution   of   whether   a   foreign   law   allows   only   the   recovery   of   actual
Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice and must be alleged and proven. damages is a question of fact  as far as the trial  court  is concerned since
foreign laws do not prove themselves in our courts.
DOCTRINE:

 Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice.   Like any other fact, they
FACTS:
1. Respondent Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Bank must be alleged and proven. The conflicting allegations as to whether New
for allegedly: (a) illegally withheld taxes charged against interests on his York   law   or   Philippine   law   applies   to   Guerreros   claims   present   a   clear
checking account with the Bank; (b) a returned check worth USS18,000.99 dispute on material allegations which can be resolved only by a trial on the
due to signature verification problems; and (c) unauthorized conversion of merits. The Walden affidavit cannot be considered as proof of New York law
his account.
2. The Bank claimed that by stipulation Guerrero’s account is governed by New on damages not only because it is self­serving but also because it does not
York and this law does not permit any claim except actual damages. The 1 SEC. 24. Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to in 
Bank filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss the
claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages. paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced 
by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the 
3. The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported the Bank’s legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not
claim that Guerrero’s bank account stipulated that the governing law is New kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the 
York law and that this law bars all of the claims except actual damages. The office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be 
Philippine Consular Office in NY authenticated the Walden affidavit.
4. CA: Even if the Walden affidavit is used for purpose of summary judgment, made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice 
the Bank must still comply with the procedure prescribed by the Rule 132, consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by 
the seal of his office.
 state the specific New York law on damages.  contrary, the Walden affidavit shows that the facts and material allegations as
pleaded by the parties are disputed and there are substantial triable issues
necessitating a formal trial.
Guerrero cannot be said to have admitted the averments in the Banks motion
for partial summary judgment and the Walden affidavit just because he failed
 Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be
to file an opposing affidavit. The Bank still had the burden of proving New alleged and proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether New York
York law and jurisprudence even if Guerrero did not present an opposing law or Philippine law applies to Guerrero’s claims present a clear dispute on
affidavit. material allegations which can be resolved only by a trial on the merits.
ISSUE:
 WON the Walden Affidavit was sufficient proof of the New York law and  The Bank, however, cannot rely on Willamette Iron and Steel Works v.
jurisprudence relied upon by the Bank in its Motion for PSJ? – NO. Muzzal or Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher to support its cause. These
cases involved attorneys testifying in open court during the trial in the Philippines
HELD: and quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be established. On the other
 NO. The Walden Affidavit failed to prove New York law and jurisprudence. The hand, the Walden Affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the affiant never
SC denied the Bank’s petition for lack of merit. testified in open court. The Walden Affidavit cannot be considered as proof of
 The CA considered the New York law and jurisprudence as public documents New York law on damages not only because it is self-serving but also because it
defined in Rule 132 Sec 19 and 24 of the Rules of Evidence, which should be does not state the specific New York law on damages.
followed in proving foreign law.
 SEC. 19. Classes of Documents. – For the purpose of their presentation in  The Walden Affidavit states conclusions from the affiant’s personal interpretation
evidence, documents are either public or private. and opinion of the facts of the case vis a vis the alleged laws and jurisprudence
Public documents are: without citing any law in particular. The citations in the Walden Affidavit of various
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign U.S. court decisions do not constitute proof of the official records or decisions of
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the the U.S. courts.
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
 SEC. 24. Proof of official record. – The record of public documents referred to in  While the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court decisions cited in the
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be Walden affidavit, these copies do not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer proof of official records or decisions of foreign courts.
having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the
 The Bank failed to comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on how to prove a foreign
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
law and decisions of foreign courts. The Walden Affidavit did not prove the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
current state of New York law and jurisprudence. Thus, the Bank has only
certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
alleged, but has not proved, what New York law and jurisprudence are on the
general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
matters at issue.
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
It Was Not Mandatory for Guerrero to Submit an Opposing Affidavit to the Walden
Affidavit
The Walden Affidavit Failed to Prove New York Law and Jurisprudence
 Next, the Bank makes much of Guerrero’s failure to submit an opposing affidavit
 The Bank’s motion for PSJ as supported by the Walden Affidavit does not
to the Walden Affidavit. However, the pertinent provision of Rule 35 Sec 3 of the
demonstrate that Guerrero’s claims are sham, fictitious or contrived. On the
 old Rules of Court did not make the submission of an opposing affidavit turn, sub-chartered the Vessel through a time charter to
mandatory. Guerrero need not file an opposing affidavit to the Walden affidavit Transmar Shipping, Inc. (Transmar). Transmar further
because his complaint itself controverts the matters set forth in the Bank’s motion
and the Walden affidavit. A party should not be made to deny matters already sub-chartered the Vessel to Portserv Limited (Portserv).
averred in his complaint. Both Transmar and Portserv are corporations organized
and existing under the laws of Canada.
 There being substantial triable issues between the parties, the courts a On or about November 1, 1995, Portserv requested
quo correctly denied the Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment. There is a petitioner Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. (Crescent), a
need to determine by presentation of evidence in a regular trial if the Bank is
guilty of any wrongdoing and if it is liable for damages under the applicable laws.
corporation organized and existing under the laws of
Canada that is engaged in the business of selling
CRESCENT PETROLEUM,
6. petroleum and oil products for the use and operation of
oceangoing vessels, to deliver marine fuel oils (bunker
LTD., Petitioner, vs. M/V "LOK fuels) to the Vessel. Petitioner Crescent granted and
confirmed the request through an advice via facsimile
MAHESHWARI," THE dated November 2, 1995. As security for the payment of
the bunker fuels and related services, petitioner Crescent
SHIPPING CORPORATION received two (2) checks in the amounts of US$100,000.00
and US$200,000.00. Thus, petitioner Crescent contracted
OF INDIA, and PORTSERV with its supplier, Marine Petrobulk Limited (Marine
Petrobulk), another Canadian corporation, for the
LIMITED physical delivery of the bunker fuels to the Vessel.
On or about November 4, 1995, Marine Petrobulk
G.R. No. 155014 November 11, delivered the bunker fuels amounting to US$103,544
inclusive of barging and demurrage charges to the Vessel
2005 at the port of Pioneer Grain, Vancouver, Canada. The
Chief Engineer Officer of the Vessel duly acknowledged
FACTS:
Respondent M/V "Lok Maheshwari" (Vessel) is an and received the delivery receipt. Marine Petrobulk
oceangoing vessel of Indian registry that is owned by issued an invoice to petitioner Crescent for the
respondent Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), a US$101,400.00 worth of the bunker fuels. Petitioner
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Crescent issued a check for the same amount in favor of
India and principally owned by the Government of India. It Marine Petrobulk, which check was duly encashed.
was time-chartered by respondent SCI to Halla Merchant Having paid Marine Petrobulk, petitioner Crescent
Marine Co. Ltd. (Halla), a South Korean company. Halla, in issued a revised invoice dated November 21, 1995 to
"Portserv Limited, and/or the Master, and/or Owners, ISSUE:
and/or Operators, and/or Charterers of M/V ‘Lok Whether the Philippine court has or will exercise
Maheshwari’" in the amount of US$103,544.00 with jurisdiction and entitled to maritime lien under our laws
instruction to remit the amount on or before December 1, on foreign vessel docked on Philippine port and supplies
1995. The period lapsed and several demands were made furnished to a vessel in a foreign port?
but no payment was received. Also, the checks issued to
petitioner Crescent as security for the payment of the RULING:
bunker fuels were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. In a suit to establish and enforce a maritime lien for
As a consequence, petitioner Crescent incurred supplies furnished to a vessel in a foreign port, whether
additional expenses of US$8,572.61 for interest, tracking such lien exists, or whether the court has or will exercise
fees, and legal fees. jurisdiction, depends on the law of the country where the
On May 2, 1996, while the Vessel was docked at the supplies were furnished, which must be pleaded and
port of Cebu City, petitioner Crescent instituted before the proved.
RTC of Cebu City an action "for a sum of money with The Lauritzen-Romero-Rhoditis trilogy of cases,
prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of which replaced such single-factor methodologies as the
preliminary attachment" against respondents Vessel and law of the place of supply. The multiple-contact test to
SCI, Portserv and/or Transmar. determine, in the absence of a specific Congressional
On May 3, 1996, the trial court issued a writ of directive as to the statute’s reach, which jurisdiction’s law
attachment against the Vessel with bond at P2,710,000.00. should be applied. The following factors were
Petitioner Crescent withdrew its prayer for a temporary considered: (1) place of the wrongful act; (2) law of the
restraining order and posted the required bond. flag; (3) allegiance or domicile of the injured; (4)
On May 18, 1996, summonses were served to allegiance of the defendant shipowner; (5) place of
respondents Vessel and SCI, and Portserv and/or contract; (6) inaccessibility of foreign forum; and (7) law
Transmar through the Master of the Vessel. On May 28, of the forum. This is applicable not only to personal injury
1996, respondents Vessel and SCI, through Pioneer claims arising under the Jones Act but to all matters
Insurance and Surety Corporation (Pioneer), filed an arising under maritime law in general
urgent ex-parte motion to approve Pioneer’s letter of The Court cannot sustain petitioner Crescent’s
undertaking, to consider it as counter-bond and to insistence on the application of P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship
discharge the attachment. On May 29, 1996, the trial court Mortgage Decree of 1978 and hold that a maritime lien
granted the motion; thus, the letter of undertaking was exists. Out of the seven basic factors listed in the case of
approved as counter-bond to discharge the attachment. Lauritzen, Philippine law only falls under one – the law of
the forum. All other elements are foreign – Canada is the
place of the wrongful act, of the allegiance or domicile of industry. Opening up our courts to foreign suppliers by granting them a
the injured and the place of contract; India is the law of
maritime lien under our laws even if they are not entitled to a maritime
the flag and the allegiance of the defendant shipowner.
Applying P.D. No. 1521,a maritime lien exists would not lien under their laws will encourage forum shopping.
promote the public policy behind the enactment of the
law to develop the domestic shipping industry. Opening Finally. The submission of petitioner is not in keeping with the
up our courts to foreign suppliers by granting them a
reasonable expectation of the parties to the contract. Indeed, when the
maritime lien under our laws even if they are not entitled
to a maritime lien under their laws will encourage forum parties entered into a contract for supplies in Canada, they could not
shopping. In light of the interests of the various foreign have intended the laws of a remote country like the Philippines to
elements involved, it is clear that Canada has the most
determine the creation of a lien by the mere accident of the Vessel's
significant interest in this dispute. The injured party is a
Canadian corporation, the sub-charterer which placed the being in Philippine territory.
orders for the supplies is also Canadian, the entity which
physically delivered the bunker fuels is in Canada, the 7. Edi-Staffbuilders Inc. (EDI) v. NLRC and Eleazar Gran
G. R. No. 145587, October 26, 2007, J. Velasco, Jr.
place of contracting and negotiation is in Canada, and the
FACTS:
supplies were delivered in Canada.
Gran was an OFW recruited by EDI, and deployed by ESI
(another recruitment agency) to work for OAB, in Riyadh, KSA.
Second. P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 is After Gran had been working for about five months for OAB, his
employment was terminated through OAB's letter, based on: (1)
inapplicable following the factors under Restatement (Second) of non-compliance to contract requirements by the recruitment
Conflict of Laws. Like the Federal Maritime Lien Act of the U.S., P.D. No. agency primarily on the salary and contract duration; (2) Non-
compliance to pre-qualification requirements by the recruitment
1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 was enacted primarily to agency, OAB; and (3) insubordination or disobedience to Top
protect Filipino suppliers and was not intended to create a lien from a
Management Order and/or instructions (i.e. non-submittal of
daily activity reports despite several instructions). Gran received
contract for supplies between foreign entities delivered in a foreign port. from OAB the total amount of SR 2,948.00 representing his final
pay, and thereafter, executed a declaration releasing OAB from
any financial obligation.
Third. Applying P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 and

rule that a maritime lien exists would not promote the public policy Upon arrival in the Philippines, Gran instituted a
complaint, against ESI/EDI and OAB inter alia, with the NLRC -
behind the enactment of the law to develop the domestic shipping
NCR, Quezon City, for underpayment of wages/salaries and
illegal dismissal. is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as
ours. Thus, Philippine labor laws was applied in this case.
ISSUE:
According to Philippine laws, incompetence may be shown by
Whether or not Gran's dismissal is justifiable by reason of weighing it against a standard, benchmark, or criterion.
incompetence, insubordination, and disobedience. However, EDI failed to establish any such bases to show how
EDI found Gran incompetent. Likewise, in order to justify willful
RULING: disobedience, it must be determined whether the order violated
by the employee is reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee, and pertains to the duties which he had been engaged
EDI failed to prove that Gran was justifiably dismissed to discharge. In the case at bar, EDI failed to show that the
due to incompetence, insubordination, or willful disobedience. In order of the company which was violated—the submission of
illegal dismissal cases, it has been established by Philippine law "Daily Activity Reports"—was part of Gran's duties as a
and jurisprudence that the employer should prove that the Computer Specialist. An allegation of incompetence should have
dismissal of employees or personnel is legal and just. a factual foundation.

In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations Hence, petition is denied.
among and between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and the
foreign employer/principal are governed by the employment
contract. A contract freely entered into is considered law 8. NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child
between the parties hence, should be respected. The RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM, Petitioner,
employment contract signed by Gran specifically states that vs.
Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not provided for in the ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, Respondent.
contract (e.g. specific causes for termination, termination
procedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci
intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should FACTS:
govern all matters relating to the termination of the employment
of Gran. Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan
Brinkman Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland on September
However, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a 25, 1990. On January 19, 1994, they were blessed with a son named
dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, who at the time of the filing of the
foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly
pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take instant petition was sixteen (16) years of age.
judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only
domestic or forum law. Unfortunately for EDI, it did not prove Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on July 19, 1995 by virtue
the pertinent Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the doctrine of of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. At
presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes that time, their son was only eighteen (18) months old. Thereafter,
into play. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded,
petitioner and her son came home to the Philippines. under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor
child.
According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide
monthly support to their son in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty SC HELD:
(250) Guildene (which is equivalent to Php17,500.00 more or less).
However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the *Note: petition was allowed to be directly appealed to the SC
Philippines, respondent never gave support to the son, Roderigo. without violating hierarchy of courts since the petition involves
purely questions of law.
Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and
remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then, have been 1. YES. Petitioner invokes Article 195 of the Family Code, which
residing thereat. Respondent and his new wife established a business provides the parent’s obligation to support his child. Petitioner
known as Paree Catering, located at Barangay Tajao, Municipality of contends that notwithstanding the existence of a divorce decree
Pinamungahan, Cebu City. To date, all the parties, including their issued in relation to Article 26 of the Family Code, respondent is not
son, Roderigo, are presently living in Cebu City. excused from complying with his obligation to support his minor
child with petitioner.
On August 28, 2009, petitioner, through her counsel, sent a letter
demanding for support from respondent. However, respondent On the other hand, respondent contends that there is no sufficient
refused to receive the letter. and clear basis presented by petitioner that she, as well as her minor
son, are entitled to financial support. Respondent also added that by
CRIME CHARGED: violation of Section 5, paragraph E(2) of reason of the Divorce Decree, he is not obligated to petitioner for
R.A. No. 9262 (VAWC) any financial support.

RTC: DISMISSED on the ground that the facts charged in the On this point, we agree with respondent that petitioner cannot rely
information do not constitute an offense with respect to the on Article 195 of the New Civil Code in demanding support from
respondent who is an ALIEN. respondent, who is a foreign citizen, since Article 15 of the New
Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality. In other words,
ISSUES: insofar as Philippine laws are concerned, specifically the provisions
of the Family Code on support, the same only applies to Filipino
1. Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his citizens. By analogy, the same principle applies to foreigners such
minor child under Philippine law; and that they are governed by their national law with respect to family
rights and duties
2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable
The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under law, said law would still not find applicability for the reason that
family rights and duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a
or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to sound and established public policy of the forum, the said
the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.
obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of
his failure to do so. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither
enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the
This does not, however, mean that respondent is not obliged to noncompliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable
support petitioner’s son altogether. in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child
to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law
applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign Based on the foregoing legal precepts, we find that respondent
law. In the present case, respondent hastily concludes that being a may be made liable under Section 5(e) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 for
national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the unjustly refusing or failing to give support to petitioner’s son.
matter of provision of and capacity to support. While respondent
pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he In addition, considering that respondent is currently living in the
is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the same. Philippines, we find strength in petitioner’s claim that the
Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation to Article 14 of
In view of respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the the New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, which provides that:
Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption "[p]enal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory,
properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the subject to the principle of public international law and to treaty
foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. stipulations." On this score, it is indisputable that the alleged
Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to continuing acts of respondent in refusing to support his child with
support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, petitioner is committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties
it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces herein are residents of the Province of Cebu City. As such, our
the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizing the courts have territorial jurisdiction over the offense charged against
non-compliance therewith. respondent. It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the
respondent was acquired upon his arrest.
We likewise agree with petitioner that notwithstanding that the
national law of respondent states that parents have no obligation to Finally, we do not agree with respondent’s argument that granting,
support their children or that such obligation is not punishable by but not admitting, that there is a legal basis for charging violation of
R.A. No. 9262 in the instant case, the criminal liability has been important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract
extinguished on the ground of prescription of crime. The act of that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of
denying support to a child under Section 5(e)(2) and (i) of R.A. No. Conflict of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the
9262 is a continuing offense, which started in 1995 but is still Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his
ongoing at present. Accordingly, the crime charged in the instant child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith, such obligation is
case has clearly not prescribed. still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great
injustice to the child to be denied of financial support when the
PETITION GRANTED, CASE REMANDED TO RTC.
latter is entitled thereto.
RULING: 2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262)
because the foreigner is living here in the Philippines and
1. YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of Holland
committed the offense here.
or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC that he is subject to the
laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is
C. Exceptions to the Application of Foreign Law
obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of
his failure to do so. This does not, however, mean that Ernst is not 1. YAO KEE VS. AIDA SY-GONZALES
obliged to support Norma’s son altogether. In international law, [G.R. No. 55960. November 24, 1988.]
the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or
case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In the present case, Facts:
Sy Kiat was a Chinese national who died on January 17, 1977 in Caloocan City
Ernst hastily concludes that being a national of the Netherlands, he where he was then residing. He left behind real and personal properties here in
is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity the Philippines worth P300,000.00.
to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in
Thereafter, Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy filed
advancing his position that he is not obliged to support his son, he a petition for the grant of letters of administration alleging that:
never proved the same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and a) they are the children of the deceased with Asuncion Gillego;
prove that the national law of the Netherlands does not impose b) that Sy Kiat died intestate;
c) they do not recognize Sy Kiat's marriage to Yao Kee nor the filiation of
upon the parents the obligation to support their child. Foreign laws her children to him; and
do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not d) they nominate Aida Sy-Gonzales for appointment as administratrix of the
intestate estate of the deceased
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they
must be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law should not be The petition was opposed by Yao Kee, Sze Sook Wah, Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun
applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the Chen who alleged that:
a) Yao Kee is the lawful wife of Sy Kiat whom he married on January 19,
citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most 1931 in China;
 b) the other oppositors are the legitimate children of the deceased with Yao Sec. 45.Unwritten law. — The oral testimony of witnesses,
Kee; and, skilled therein, is admissible as evidence of the unwritten law of
c) Sze Sook Wah is the eldest among them and is competent, willing and a foreign country, as are also printed and published books of
desirous to become the administratrix of the estate of Sy Kiat
reports of decisions of the courts of the foreign country, if
proved to be commonly admitted in such courts.
Probate Court (PC): held in favor of the petitioners (Yao Kee et al.) and
appointed Sze Sook Wah as the administratrix.
Proof of a written foreign law, on the other hand, is provided for under Rule 132
CA: modified the PC’s decision by declaring that: section 25, thus:
a) Respondents as acknowledged natural children of Sy Kiat with Sec. 25.Proof of public or official record. — An official record or
Asuncion Gillego an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be
b) Legality of the alleged marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee in China
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested
had not been proven to be valid to the laws of the Chinese
People's Republic of China by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If
Issue: the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or legation,
W/N the marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee was conclusively proven valid in consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
accordance with the laws of the People’s Republic of China.
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept and authenticated by
Ruling: the seal of his office.
No.
In the case at bar, petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to
The law on foreign marriages is provided by Article 71 of the Civil Code which the law and custom of China on marriage. The testimonies of Yao and Gan Ching
states that: cannot be considered as proof of China's law or custom on marriage not only
Art. 71.All marriages performed outside the Philippines in because they are self-serving evidence, but more importantly, there is no showing
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they that they are competent to testify on the subject matter. For failure to prove the
were performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in
foreign law or custom, and consequently, the validity of the marriage in
this country, except bigamous, polygamous, or incestuous
marriages, as determined by Philippine law. accordance with said law or custom, the marriage between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat
cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.
This Court has held that to establish a valid foreign marriage two things must be
proven, namely: (1) the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact; and (2) Furthermore, well-established in this jurisdiction is the principle that Philippine
the alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence [Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved
43 Phil. 43, 49 (1922).]. as any other fact.

In proving a foreign law the procedure is provided in the Rules of Court. With Accordingly, in the absence of proof of the Chinese law on marriage, it should be
respect to an unwritten foreign law, Rule 130 section 45 states that: presumed that it is the same as ours. Since Yao Kee admitted in her testimony that
there was no solemnizing officer as is known here in the Philippines when her
alleged marriage to Sy Kiat was celebrated, it therefore follows that her marriage
to Sy Kiat, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

2.