EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE

WONG WOO YU v. VIVO

13 SCRA 552

FACTS:
In the proceedings held before the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) in June
1961, petitioner Wong Yu declared that she came to the Philippines in 1961 to
join her Filipino husband Perfecto Blas, to whom she was married in Chingkang,
China on January 15, 1929 in a ceremony celebrated by Chua Tio, a village
leader.
On the basis of such declaration, the BSI rendered a decision finding Wong
Yu to be legally married to Blas, and admitted her into the country as a non-
quota immigrant. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners.
However, on June 28, 1962, the same Board of Commissioners, rendered a new
decision reversing that of the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 and ordering
petitioner to be excluded from the country.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is recognized in Philippine courts
HELD:
No. The only basis in support of the claim that she is the wife of Perfecto Blas is
a mass of oral and documentary evidence bereft of substantial proof of husband-
wife relationship.
Indeed, not only is there no documentary evidence to support the alleged
marriage of petitioner to Perfecto Blas but the record is punctured with so many
inconsistencies which cannot but lead one to doubt their veracity concerning the
pretended marriage in China in 1929. This claim cannot also be entertained
under our law on family relations. Thus, Article 15 of our new Civil Code provides
that laws relating to family rights or to the status of persons are binding upon
citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad, and it is well-known that
in 1929 in order that a marriage celebrated in the Philippines may be valid it
must be solemnized either by a judge of any court inferior to the Supreme Court,
a justice of the peace, or a priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination
duly registered in the Philippine Library and Museum (Public Act 3412, Section
2). Even if we assume, therefore, that the marriage of petitioner to Perfecto Blas
before a village leader is valid in China, the same is not one of those authorized
in our country.
EFFECT of MARRIAGE
DJUMANTAN v. HON. DOMINGO
G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995

FACTS:
Bernard Banez, husband of Marina Cabael, went to Indonesia as a
contract worker. He then embraced and was converted to Islam.
He then, married petitioner in accordance with Islamic rites. Banez then
returned to the Philippines. Petitioner and her two children with Banez arrived
in Manila as the “guests” of Banez. The latter made it appear that she was just
a friend of the family of petitioner and was merely repaying the hospitability
extended to him during his stay in Indonesia. Banez executed an “Affidavit of
Guaranty and Support,” for his “guests.” As “guests,” petitioner and her two
children lived in the house of Banez. Petitioner and her children were admitted
to the Philippines as temporary visitors. Marina Cabael discovered the true
relationship of her husband and petitioner. She filed a complaint for
“concubinage”, however, subsequently dismissed for lack of merit.
Immigration status of petitioner was changed from temporary visitor to
that of permanent resident. Petitioner was issued an alien certificate of
registration. Banez’ eldest son, Leonardo, filed a letter complaint subsequently
referred to CID. Petitioner was detained at the CID detention cell. Petitioner
moved for the dismissal of the deportation case on the ground that she was
validly married to a Filipino citizen. CID disposed that the second marriage of
Bernardo Banes to respondent Djumantan irregular and not in accordance with
the laws of the Philippines. They revoked the visa previously granted to her.

ISSUE: Effect of marriage on the wife’s right to stay in the Philippines

HELD:
The interest, which an alien has in being admitted into or allowed to
continue to reside in the country, is protected only so far as Congress may choose
to protect it. There is no law guaranteeing aliens married to Filipino citizens the
right to be admitted, much less to be given permanent residency, in the
Philippines. The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen does not withdraw her
from the operation of the immigration laws governing the admission and
exclusion of aliens. Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not
ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse her from her failure to
depart from the country upon the expiration of her extended stay here as an
alien.

PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ V. VICENTE F. ESCANO, GR. NO. L-19671,

NOVEMBER 29,1965

FACTS:

In 1948, Pastor Tenchavez and Vicente Escaño were married before a Catholic
priest in the Philippines. On October 22, 1950, Vicente obtained an absolute
divorce from her husband from the State of Nevada, U.S.A. She then married in
America with an American. Both presently reside in California, the girl having
acquired American Citizenship in 1958. On July 30, 1955, however, Tenchavez
had already initiated legal separation proceedings in the Philippines.

ISSUE:
Will the legal separation proceedings and relief for damages prosper?

RULING:

Yes, because the girl technically has committed adultery, her divorce not being
recognized here in the Philippines. Pastor, aside from being relieved of his duty
to support her, can obtain damages from her – in view of her refusal to perform
her wifely duties, her denial of consortium, and her desertion of her husband.

PEOPLE VS SCHNECKENBURGER 73 PHIL. 413

Facts:

A husband, who was an alien consul in Manila, and his wife entered into a
mutual agreement whereby each could carnally live with others, without
interference from either. Pursuant to the immoral agreement, the husband lived
with another woman, and in the prosecution for concubinage he presented in
defense the prior agreement or consent. Is he guilty?

Ruling:

No, he is not guilty for after all the wife had previously given her consent. The
Court also said:

1. The agreement is still null and void because it is contrary to the law and
morals. But precisely because the girl had previously given her consent,
she is now underserving of our sympathy. She deserves less consideration
than a woman who condones.
 2. It is alleged that when the law speaks of consent, what is meant is
condonation. This is not so because condonation comes after while
consent is prior to the act.

PEOPLE V. JUDGE TOLENTINO GR NO. 94147, JUNE 8, 1994

Facts:

Alvin, natural born US citizen, and his wife Evelyn, a natural born Filipina who
in 1988 became naturalized US citizens, jointly filed in 1990 a petition for
adoption of Solomon, Evelyn’s 12-year old brother.

Issue:
Are Alvin and Evelyn qualified to adopt Solomon?

Ruling:

No. An alien who may adopt a Filipino is one who is a former Filipino citizen
seeking to adopt a relative by consanguinity, or one seeking to adopt the
legitimate child of his or her Filipino spouse, or one who is married to a Filipino
citizen seeking to adopt jointly with his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity
nor the legitimate child of his spouse.

When the petition was filed, Evelyn was no longer a Filipino citizen. While she
may appear qualified, adoption cannot be granted in her favor alone because the
law mandates joint adoption by husband and wife.