G.R. No. 18081 March 3, 1922IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHEONG BOO, deceased.MORA ADONG,petitioner-appellant,vs.CHEONG SENG GEE,opponent-appellant.Kincaid, Perkins & Kincaid and P. J. Moore for petitioner-appellant.Carlos A. Sobral for opponent-appellant.MALCOLM,J.:The two question presented for determination by these appeals may be framed as follows: Is a marriage contracted in China and proven mainly by an alleged matrimonial letter, valid in the Philippines? Are the marriage performed in the Philippines according to the rites of the Mohammedan religion valid? As the decision of the Supreme Court on the last point will affect marriages consummated by not less than one hundred and fifty thousand Moros who profess the Mohammedan faith, the transcendental importance of the cause can be realized. We proposed to give to the subject the serious consideration which it deserves.Cheong Boo, a native of China, died intestate in Zamboanga, Philippine Islands, on August 5, 1919. He left property worth nearly P100,000. The estate of the deceased was claimed, on the one hand, by Cheong Seng Gee, who alleged that he was a legitimate child by a marriage contracted by Cheong Boo with Tan Dit in China in 1895. The estate was claimed, on the other hand, by the Mora Adong who alleged that she had been lawfully married to Cheong Boo in 1896 in Basilan, Philippine Islands, and her daughters, Payang, married to Cheng Bian Chay, and Rosalia Cheong Boo, unmarried.The conflicting claims to the estate of Cheong Boo were ventilated in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. The trial judge, the Honorable Quirico Abeto, after hearing the evidence presented by both sides, reached the conclusion, with reference to the allegations of Cheong Seng Gee, that the proof did not sufficiently establish the Chinese marriage, but that because Cheong Seng Gee had been admitted to the Philippine Islands as the son of the deceased, he should share in the estate as a natural child. With reference to the allegations of the Mora Adong and her daughters Payang and Rosalia, the trial judge reached the conclusion that the marriage between the Mora Adong and the deceased had been adequately proved but that under the laws of the Philippine Islands it could not be held to be a lawful marriage; accordingly, the daughters Payang and Rosalia would inherit as natural children. The order of the trial judge, following these conclusions, was that there should be a partition of the property of the deceased Cheong Boo between the natural children, Cheong Seng Gee, Payang, and Rosalia.From the judgment of the Judge of First Instance both parties perfected appeals. As to the facts, we can say that we agree in substance with the findings of the trial court. As to the legal issues submitted for decision by the numerous assignments of error, these can best be resolved under two heads, namely: (1) The validity of the Chinese marriage; and (2) the validity of the Mohammedan marriage.1.Validity of the Chinese MarriageThe theory advanced on behalf of the claimant Cheong Seng Gee was that Cheong Boo was married in the city of Amoy, China, during the second moon of the twenty-first year of the Emperor Quang Su, or, according to the modern count, on February 16, 1985, to a young lady named Tan Dit. Witnesses were presented who testified to having been present at the marriage ceremony. There was also introduced in evidence a document in Chinese which in translation reads as follows:One hundred years of life and health for both.Your nephew, Tan Chao, respecfully answers the venerable Chiong Ing, father of the bridegroom, accepting his offer of marriage, and let this document serve as proof of the acceptance of said marriage which is to be celebrated during the merry season of the flowers.I take advantage of this occasion to wish for your and the spouses much happiness, a long life, and prolific issue, as noble and great as that which you brought forth. I consider the marriage of your son Boo with my sister Lit Chia as a mandate of God and I hope that they treat each other with great love and mutual courtesy and that both they and their parents be very happy.Given during the second moon of the twenty-first year of the reign of the Emperor Quang Su.

Cheong Boo is said to have remained in China for one year and four months after his marriage during which time there was born to him and his wife a child named Cheong Seng Gee. Cheong Boo then left China for the Philippine Islands and sometime thereafter took to himself a concubine Mora by whom he had two children. In 1910, Cheong Boo was followed to the Philippines by Cheong Seng Gee who, as appears from documents presented in evidence, was permitted to land in the Philippine Islands as the son of Cheong Boo. The deceased, however, never returned to his native hearth and seems never to have corresponded with his Chinese wife or to have had any further relations with her except once when he sent her P10.The trial judge found, as we have said, that the proof did not sustain the allegation of the claimant Cheong Seng Gee, that Cheong Boo had married in China. His Honor noted a strong inclination on the part of the Chinese witnesses, especially the brother of Cheong Boo, to protect the interests of the alleged son, Cheong Seng Gee, by overstepping the limits of truthfulness. His Honor also noted that reliable witnesses stated that in the year 1895, when Cheong Boo was supposed to have been in China, he was in reality in Jolo, in the Philippine Islands. We are not disposed to disturb this appreciation of fact by the trial court. The immigration documents only go to show the relation of parent and child existing between the deceased Cheong Boo and his son Cheong Seng Gee and do not establish the marriage between the deceased and the mother of Cheong Seng Gee.Section IV of the Marriage Law (General Order No. 68) provides that "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 Islands." To establish a valid foreign marriage pursuant to this comity provision, it is first necessary to prove before the courts of the Islands the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact, and it is then necessary to prove the alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence.As a case directly in point is the leading one of Sy Joc Liengvs.Encarnacion ([1910]), 16 Phil., 137; [1913], 228 U.S., 335). Here, the courts of the Philippines and the Supreme Court of the United States were called upon to decide, as to the conflicting claims to the estate of a Chinese merchant, between the descendants of an alleged Chinese marriage and the descendants of an alleged Philippine marriage. The Supreme Courts of the Philippine Islands and the United States united in holding that the Chinese marriage was not adequately proved. The legal rule was stated by the United States Supreme Court to be this: A Philippine marriage, followed by forty years of uninterrupted marital life, should not be impugned and discredited, after the death of the husband and administration of his estate, though an alleged prior Chinese marriage, "save upon proof so clear, strong, and unequivocal as to produce a moral conviction of the existence of such impediment." Another case in the same category is that of Son Cuivs.Guepangco ([1912], 22 Phil., 216).In the case at bar there is no competent testimony as to what the laws of China in the Province of Amoy concerning marriage were in 1895. As in the Encarnacion case, there is lacking proof so clear, strong, and unequivocal as to produce a moral conviction of the existence of the alleged prior Chinese marriage. Substitute twenty-three years for forty years and the two cases are the same.The lower court allowed the claimant, Cheong Seng Gee, the testamentary rights of an acknowledged natural child. This finding finds some support in Exhibit 3, the affidavit of Cheong Boo before the American Vice-Consul at Sandakan, British North Borneo. But we are not called upon to make a pronouncement on the question, because the oppositor-appellant indicates silent acquiescence by assigning no error.2.Validity of the Mohammedan MarriageThe biographical data relating to the Philippine odyssey of the Chinaman Cheong Boo is fairly complete. He appears to have first landed on Philippine soil sometime prior to the year 1896. At least, in the year las mentioned, we find him in Basilan, Philippine Islands. There he was married to the Mora Adong according to the ceremonies prescribed by the book on marriage of the Koran, by the Mohammedan Iman (priest) Habubakar. That a marriage ceremony took place is established by one of the parties to the marriage, the Mora Adong, by the Iman who solemnized the marriage, and by other eyewitnesses, one of whom was the father of the bride, and another, the chief of the rancheria, now a municipal councilor. The groom complied with Quranic law by giving to the bride a dowry of P250 in money and P250 in goods.The religious rites began with the bride and groom seating themselves in the house of the father of the bride, Marahadja Sahibil. The Iman read from the Koran. Then the Iman asked the parents if they had any objection to the marriage. The marital act was consummated by the groom entering the woman's mosquito net.From the marriage day until the death of Cheong Boo, twenty-three years later, the Chinaman and the Mora Adong cohabited as husband and wife. To them were born five children, two of whom, Payang and Rosalia, are living. Both in his relations with Mora Adong and with third persons during his lifetime, Cheong Boo treated Adong as his lawful wife. He admitted this relationship in several private and public documents. Thus, when different legal documents were executed, including decrees of registration, Cheong Boo stated that he was married to the Mora Adong while as late as 1918, he gave written consent to the marriage of his minor daughter, Payang.Notwithstanding the insinuation of counsel for the Chinese appellant that the custom is prevalent among the Moros to favor in their testimony, a relative or friend, especially when they do not swear on the Koran to tell the truth, it seems to us that proof could not be more convincing of the fact that a marriage was contracted by the Chinaman Cheong Boo and the Mora Adong, according to the ceremonies of the Mohammedan religion.It is next incumbent upon us to approach the principal question which we announced in the very beginning of this decision, namely, Are the marriages performed in the Philippines according to the rites of the Mohammedan religion valid? Three sections of the Marriage Law (General Order No. 68) must be taken into consideration.Section V of the Marriage Law provides that "Marriage may be solemnized by either a judge of any court inferior to the Supreme Court, justice of the peace,or priest or minister of the Gospel of any denomination. . ." Counsel, failing to take account of the word "priest," and only considering the phrase "minister of the Gospel of any denomination" would limit the meaning of this clause to ministers of the Christian religion. We believe this is a strained interpretation. "Priest," according to the lexicographers, means one especially consecrated to the service of a divinity and considered as the medium through whom worship, prayer, sacrifice, or other service is to be offered to the being worshipped, and pardon, blessing, deliverance, etc., obtained by the worshipper, as a priest of Baal or of Jehovah; a Buddhist priest. "Minister of the Gospel" means all clergymen of every denomination and faith. A "denomination" is a religious sect having a particular name. (Hagginvs.Haggin [1892], 35 Neb., 375;In reReinhart, 9 O. Dec., 441; Halevs.Everett [1868], 53 N. H. 9.) A Mohammedan Iman is a "priest or minister of the Gospel," and Mohammedanism is a "denomination," within the meaning of the Marriage Law.The following section of the Marriage Law, No. VI, provides that "No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required, but the parties must declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage, that they take each other as husband and wife." The law is quite correct in affirming that no precise ceremonial is indispensable requisite for the creation of the marriage contract. The two essentials of a valid marriage are capacity and consent. The latter element may be inferred from the ceremony performed, the acts of the parties, and habit or repute. In this instance, there is no question of capacity. Nor do we think there can exist any doubt as to consent. While it is true that during the Mohammedan ceremony, the remarks of the priest were addressed more to the elders than to the participants, it is likewise true that the Chinaman and the Mora woman did in fact take each other to be husband and wife and did thereafter live together as husband and wife. (Traversvs.Reinhardt [1907], 205 U.S., 423.It would be possible to leave out of view altogether the two sections of the Marriage Law which have just been quoted and discussed. The particular portion of the law which, in our opinion, is controlling, is section IX, reading as follows: "No marriage heretofore solemnized before any person professing to have authority therefor shall be invalid for want of such authority or on account of any informality, irregularity, or omission, if it was celebrated with the belief of the parties, or either of them, that he had authority and that they have been lawfully married."The trial judge in construing this provision of law said that he did not believe that the legislative intention in promulgating it was to validate marriages celebrated between Mohammedans. To quote the judge:This provisions relates to marriages contracted by virtue of the provisions of the Spanish law before revolutionary authorized to solemnized marriages, and it is not to be presumed that the legislator intended by this law to validate void marriages celebrated during the Spanish sovereignty contrary to the laws which then governed.What authority there is for this statement, we cannot conceive. To our mind, nothing could be clearer than the language used in section IX. Note for a moment the all embracing words found in this section:"No marriage" Could more inclusive words be found? "Heretofore solemnized" Could any other construction than that of retrospective force be given to this phrase? "Before any person professing to have authority therefor shall be invalid for want of such authority" Could stronger language than this be invoked to announce legislative intention? "Or on account of any informality, irregularity, or omission" Could the legislative mind frame an idea which would more effectively guard the marriage relation against technicality? "If it was celebrated with the belief of the parties, or either of them, that he had authority and that they have been lawfully married" What was the purpose of the legislator here, if it was not to legalize the marriage, if it was celebrated by any person who thought that he had authority to perform the same, and if either of the parties thought that they had been married? Is there any word or hint of any word which would restrict the curative provisions of section IX of the Marriage Law to Christian marriages? By what system of mental gymnastics would it be possible to evolve from such precise language the curious idea that it was restricted to marriages performed under the Spanish law before the revolutionary authorities?In view of the importance of the question, we do not desire to stop here but would ascertain from other sources the meaning and scope of Section IX of General Order No. 68.The purpose of the government toward the Mohammedan population of the Philippines has, time and again, been announced by treaty, organic law, statutory law, and executive proclamation. The Treaty of Paris in its article X, provided that "The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured Instructions to the Philippine Commission imposed on every branch of the Government of the Philippine Islands the inviolable rule "that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed ... That no form of religion and no minister of religion shall be forced upon any community or upon any citizen of the Islands; that, upon the other hand, no minister of religion shall be interfered with or molested in following his calling, and that the separation between state and church shall be real, entire, and absolute." The notable state paper of President McKinley also enjoined the Commission, "to bear in mind that the Government which they are establishing is designed . . . for the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands" and that, therefore, "the measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and even their prejudices. . . . The Philippine Bill and the Jones Law reproduced the main constitutional provisions establishing religious toleration and equality.Executive and legislative policy both under Spain and the United States followed in the same path. For instance, in the Treaty of April 30, 1851, entered into by the Captain General of the Philippines and the Sultan of Sulu, the Spanish Government guaranteed "with all solemnity to the Sultan and other inhabitants of Sulu the free exercise of their religion, with which it will not interfere in the slightest way, and it will also respect their customs." (See furtherDecree of the Governor-General of January 14, 1881.) For instance, Act No. 2520 of the Philippine Commission, section 3, provided that "Judges of the Court of First Instance and justices of the peace deciding civil cases in which the parties are Mohammedans or pagans, when such action is deemed wise, may modify the application of the law of the Philippine Islands, except laws of the United States applicable to the Philippine Islands, taking into account local laws and customs. . . ." (See furtherAct No. 787, sec. 13 [j]; Act No. 1283, sec. 6 [b]; Act No. 114 of the Legislative Council amended and approved by the Philippine Commission; Cachovs.Government of the United States [1914], 28 Phil., 616.) Various responsible officials have so oft announced the purpose of the Government not to interfere with the customs of the Moros, especially their religious customs, as to make quotation of the same superfluous.The retrospective provisions of the Philippine Marriage Law undoubtedly were inspired by the governmental policy in the United States, with regard to the marriages of the Indians, the Quakers, and the Mormons. The rule as to Indians marriages is, that a marriage between two Indians entered into according to the customs and laws of the people at a place where such customs and laws are in force, must be recognized as a valid marriage. The rule as to the Society of Quakers is, that they will be left to their own customs and that their marriages will be recognized although they use no solemnization. The rule as to Mormon marriages is that the sealing ceremony entered into before a proper official by members of that Church competent to contract marriage constitutes a valid marriage.The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but, it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is "that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.:" (Sec. 334, No. 28.)Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio Always presume marriage. (U. S.vs.Villafuerte and Rabano [1905], 4 Phil., 476; Son Cuivs.Guepangco,supra; U.S.vs.Memoracion and Uri [1916], 34 Phil., 633; Tetervs.Teter [1884], 101 Ind., 129.)Section IX of the Marriage Law is in the nature of a curative provision intended to safeguard society by legalizing prior marriages. We can see no substantial reason for denying to the legislative power the right to remove impediments to an effectual marriage. If the legislative power can declare what shall be valid marriages, it can render valid, marriages which, when they took place, were against the law. Public policy should aid acts intended to validate marriages and should retard acts intended to invalidate marriages. (Coghsenvs.Stonington [1822], 4 Conn, 209; Baityvs.Cranfill [1884], 91 N. C., 273.)The courts can properly incline the scales of their decisions in favors of that solution which will mot effectively promote the public policy. That is the true construction which will best carry legislative intention into effect. And here the consequences, entailed in holding that the marriage of the Mora Adong and the deceased Cheong Boo, in conformity with the Mohammedan religion and Moro customs, was void, would be far reaching in disastrous result. The last census shows that there are at least one hundred fifty thousand Moros who have been married according to local custom. We then have it within our power either to nullify or to validate all of these marriages; either to make all of the children born of these unions bastards or to make them legitimate; either to proclaim immorality or to sanction morality; either to block or to advance settled governmental policy. Our duty is a obvious as the law is plain.In moving toward our conclusion, we have not lost sight of the decisions of this court in the cases of United Statesvs.Tubban ([1915]), 29 Phil., 434) and United Statesvs.Verzola ([1916, 33 Phil., 285). We do not, however, believe these decisions to be controlling. In the first place, these were criminal actions and two Justice dissented.. In the second place, in the Tubban case, the marriage in question was a tribal marriage of the Kalingas, while in the Verzola case, the marriage had been performed during the Spanishregimeby a lieutenant of theGuardia Civil. In neither case, in deciding as to whether or not the accused should be given the benefit of the so-called unwritten law, was any consideration given to the provisions of section IX of General Order No. 68. We are free to admit that, if necessary, we would unhesitatingly revoke the doctrine announced in the two cases above mentioned.We regard the evidence as producing a moral conviction of the existence of the Mohammedan marriage. We regard the provisions of section IX of the Marriage law as validating marriages performed according to the rites of the Mohammedan religion.There are other questions presented in the various assignments of error which it is unnecessary to decide. Inresume, we find the Chinese marriage not to be proved and that the Chinaman Cheong Seng Gee has only the rights of a natural child, and we find the Mohammedan marriage to be proved and to be valid, thus giving to the widow and the legitimate children of this union the rights accruing to them under the law.Judgment is reversed in part, and the case shall be returned to the lower court for a partition of the property in accordance with this decision, and for further proceedings in accordance with law. Without special findings as to costs in this instance, it is so ordered.Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Street, Avancea, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-42581 October 2, 1935THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.MORA DUMPO,Defendant-Appellant.Arturo M. Tolentino for appellant.Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.RECTO,J.:chanrobles virtual law libraryMoro Hassan and Mora Dupo have been legally married according to the rites and practice of the Mohammedan religion. Without this marriage being dissolved, it is alleged that Dumpo contracted another marriage with Moro Sabdapal after which the two lived together as husband and wife. Dumpo was prosecuted for and convicted of the crime of bigamy in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty with a maximum of eight years, and one day ofprision mayorand minimum of two years, four months and twenty one days ofprision correccional, with costs. From this judgment the accused interposed an appeal. The records of the case disclose that it has been established by the defense, without the prosecution having presented any objection nor evidence to the contrary, that the alleged second marriage of the accused is null and void according to Mohammedan rites on the ground that her father had not given his consent thereto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryWe formulate no general statement regarding the requisites necessary for the validity of a marriage between Moros according to Mohammedan rites. This is a fact of which no judicial notice may be taken and must be subject to proof in every particular case. In the case at bar we have the uncontradicted testimony of Tahari, an Iman or Mohammedan priest authorized to solemnize marriages between Mohammedans, to the effect that the consent of the bride's father or. in the absence thereof, that of the chief of the tribe to which she belongs in an indipensable requisite for the validity of such contracts. If the absence of this requisite did not make the marriage contract between Mohammedans void, it was easy for the prosecution to show it by refuting Iman Tahari's testimony inasmuch as for lack of one there were two other Imans among the State witnesses in this case. It failed to do so, however, and from such failure we infer that the Iman's testimony for the defense is in accordance with truth. It is contended that, granting the absolute necessity of the requisite in question, tacit compliance therewith may be presumed because it does not appear that Dumpo's father has signified his opposition to this alleged marriage after he had been informed of its celebration. But this presumption should not be established over the categorical affirmation of Moro Jalmani, Dumpo's father, that he did not give his consent to his daughter's alleged second marriage for the reason that he was not informed thereof and that, at all events, he would not have given it, knowing that Dumpo's first marriage was not dissolved.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryIt is an essential element of the crime of bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requisites, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. It appearing that the marriage alleged to first been contracted by the accused with Sabdapal, her former marriage with Hassan being undissolved, cannot be considered as such, there is no justification to hold her guilty of the crime charged in the information.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryWherefore, reversing the appealed judgment, the accused is acquitted of the charges and if she should be in detention her immediate release is ordered, with the costs of both instancesde oficio.So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryAvancea, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Imperial,JJ., concur.Separate Opinionschanrobles virtual law libraryHULL,J.,dissenting:chanrobles virtual law libraryUnder section 25 of the Marriage Law Act No. 3613, "marriages between Mohammedans may be performed in accordance with the rites or practices of their religion . . .," and as stated in the majority opinion we cannot take judicial notice of such matters but that they are subject to proof, as is any foreign law. The person "learned in the law" who was presented as an expert witness for the defense, did not know his age, but it was estimated by the judgment as fifty-four years. He gave his occupation as that of a fisherman and stated he had performed two marriages. He does not know how to read. He was not asked any questions as to whether there was a difference between the marriage of a young woman living with her parents or a woman who had been emancipated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryIn the evidence of the prosecution, it was shown that the second marriage was solemnized by an Iman, a Mohammedan religious official, seventy years old, who was living in the vicinity of the contracting parties.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryThere was no quotation from the Koran regarding the essentials of a marriage ceremony according to the Mohammedan religion, and I agree with the trial court that the evidence relied upon by the majority opinion, is not worthy of serious consideration. If consent were in fact necessary, it can well be presumed from the subsequent actions of the father of the girl. She left his house and after the second ceremony lived openly with her second husband, this with her father's full knowledge and at least tacit consent, for many months.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryI therefore believe that the sentence appealed from should be affirmed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryVickers, Goddard, and Diaz, concurs.

G.R. No. L-21076 March 31, 1965WONG WOO YIU alias NG YAO,petitioner-appellee,vs.HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ETC., ET AL.,respondents-appellants.Platon A. Baysa for petitioner-appellee.Office of the Solicitor General for respondents-appellants.BAUTISTA ANGELO,J.:On June 28, 1961, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision finding petitioner to be legally married to Perfecto Blas and admitting her into the country as a non-quota immigrant. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners on July 12, 1961 of which petitioner was duly informed in a letter sent on the same date by the Secretary of the Board. However, on June 28, 1962, the same Board of Commissioners, but composed entirely of a new set of members, rendered a new decision reversing that of the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 and ordering petitioner to be excluded from the country. On August 9, 1962, petitioner filed a motion for new trial requesting an opportunity to clarify certain points taken in the decision, but the same was denied for lack of merit. Whereupon, on September 14, 1962, petitioner initiated the instant petition formandamuswith preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila which incidentally was considered by it as a petition forcertiorari.In due time, respondents filed their answer, and, after the parties had submitted a written stipulation of facts, attaching thereto some documentary evidence, the courta quorendered a decision granting in, toto the relief prayed for. Thus, the court declared valid the decision rendered by the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 while it restrained respondents from excluding petitioner from the country. Respondents interposed the present appeal.It appears that in the proceedings held before the Board of Special Inquiry sometime in June, 1961, petitioner declared that she came to the Philippines in 1961 for the first time to join her husband Perfecto Blas to whom she was married in Chingkang, China on January 15, 1929; that they had several children all of whom are not in the Philippines; that their marriage was celebrated by one Chua Tio, a village leader; that on June 28, 1961 the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision finding, among others, that petitioner is legally married to Perfecto Blas, a Filipino Citizen, and admitted her into the country as a non-quota immigrant; that this decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners of which petitioner was duly notified by the Secretary of said Board in a letter dated July 12, 1961; that in amotu propriodecision rendered by the Board of Commissioners composed of a new set of members dated June 28, 1962 the latter found that petitioner's claim that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas was without basis in evidence as it was "bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship"; that said Board further held that, it appearing that in the entry proceedings of Perfecto Blas had on January 23, 1947 he declared that he first visited China in 1935 and married petitioner in 1936, it could not possibly sustain her claim that she married Perfecto Blas in 1929; that in an affidavit dated August 9, 1962 Perfecto Blas claimed that he went to China in 1929, 1935 and 1941, although in his re-entry declaration he admitted that he first went to China in 1935, then in 1937, then in 1939, and lastly in 1941; and that Perfecto Blas in the same affidavit likewise claimed that he first went to China when he was merely four years old so that computed from his date of birth in 1908 it must have been in 1912.1wph1.tIn view of the discrepancies found in the statements made by petitioner and her alleged husband Perfecto Blas in the several investigations conducted by the immigration authorities concerning their alleged marriage before a village leader in China in 1929, coupled with the fact that the only basis in support of petitioner's claim that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas is "a mass of oral and documentary evidence bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship," the Board of Commissionersmotu proprioreviewed the record concerning the admission of petitioner into the country resulting in its finding that she was improperly admitted. Thus, said Board made the following comment: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. She relies on the records of Perfecto Blas in connection with his cancellation case and the testimony of the supposed children in the previous admission proceeding. But this claim is belied by the admission of Perfecto Blas himself, in the hearing conducted by a Board of special inquiry in connection with his entry on January 23, 1947, that he was married to one Ng Yo in Ki Say, Chingkang, China in 1936, his first visit there being in 1935; he could not therefore have been married to herein applicant in 1929.The above comment cannot be disputed, it finding support in the record. 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.But it may be contended that under Section 4 of General orders No. 68, as reproduced in Section 19 of Act No. 3613, which is now Article 71 of our new Civil Code, a marriage contracted outside of the Philippines which is valid under the law of the country in which it was celebrated is also valid in the Philippines. But no validity can be given to this contention because no proof was presented relative to the law of marriage in China. Such being the case, we should apply the general rule that in the absence of proof of the law of a foreign country it should be presumed that it is the same as our own.The statutes of other countries or states must be pleaded and proved the same as any other fact. Courts cannot take judicial notice of what such laws are. In the absence of pleading and proof the laws of a foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our own. (Yam Ka Lim v. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. 46).In the absence of anything to the contrary as to the character of a foreign law, it will be presumed to be the same as the domestic law on the same subject. (Lim and Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472).In the absence of evidence to the contrary foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. (Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867).Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the officers mentioned therein, and a village leader is not one of them, it is clear that petitioner's marriage, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. As a corollary, the petition formandamusfiled before the courta quois hereby dismissed. No costs.Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-19671 November 29, 1965PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ,plaintiff-appellant,vs.VICENTA F. ESCAO, ET AL.,defendants-appellees.I. V. Binamira & F. B. Barria for plaintiff-appellant.Jalandoni & Jarnir for defendants-appellees.REYES, J.B.L.,J.:Direct appeal, on factual and legal questions, from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in its Civil Case No. R-4177, denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant, Pastor B. Tenchavez, for legal separation and one million pesos in damages against his wife and parents-in-law, the defendants-appellees, Vicente, Mamerto and Mena,1all surnamed "Escao," respectively.2The facts, supported by the evidence of record, are the following:Missing her late afternoon classes on 24 February 1948 in the University of San Carlos, Cebu City, where she was then enrolled as a second year student of commerce, Vicenta Escao, 27 years of age (scion of a well-to-do and socially prominent Filipino family of Spanish ancestry and a "sheltered colegiala"), exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years of age, an engineer, ex-army officer and of undistinguished stock, without the knowledge of her parents, before a Catholic chaplain, Lt. Moises Lavares, in the house of one Juan Alburo in the said city. The marriage was the culmination of a previous love affair and was duly registered with the local civil register.Vicenta's letters to Pastor, and his to her, before the marriage, indicate that the couple were deeply in love. Together with a friend, Pacita Noel, their matchmaker and go-between, they had planned out their marital future whereby Pacita would be the governess of their first-born; they started saving money in a piggy bank. A few weeks before their secret marriage, their engagement was broken; Vicenta returned the engagement ring and accepted another suitor, Joseling Lao. Her love for Pastor beckoned; she pleaded for his return, and they reconciled. This time they planned to get married and then elope. To facilitate the elopement, Vicenta had brought some of her clothes to the room of Pacita Noel in St. Mary's Hall, which was their usual trysting place.Although planned for the midnight following their marriage, the elopement did not, however, materialize because when Vicente went back to her classes after the marriage, her mother, who got wind of the intended nuptials, was already waiting for her at the college. Vicenta was taken home where she admitted that she had already married Pastor. Mamerto and Mena Escao were surprised, because Pastor never asked for the hand of Vicente, and were disgusted because of the great scandal that the clandestine marriage would provoke (t.s.n., vol. III, pp. 1105-06). The following morning, the Escao spouses sought priestly advice. Father Reynes suggested a recelebration to validate what he believed to be an invalid marriage, from the standpoint of the Church, due to the lack of authority from the Archbishop or the parish priest for the officiating chaplain to celebrate the marriage. The recelebration did not take place, because on 26 February 1948 Mamerto Escao was handed by a maid, whose name he claims he does not remember, a letter purportedly coming from San Carlos college students and disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor Tenchavez and Pacita Noel; Vicenta translated the letter to her father, and thereafter would not agree to a new marriage. Vicenta and Pastor met that day in the house of Mrs. Pilar Mendezona. Thereafter, Vicenta continued living with her parents while Pastor returned to his job in Manila. Her letter of 22 March 1948 (Exh. "M"), while still solicitous of her husband's welfare, was not as endearing as her previous letters when their love was aflame.Vicenta was bred in Catholic ways but is of a changeable disposition, and Pastor knew it. She fondly accepted her being called a "jellyfish." She was not prevented by her parents from communicating with Pastor (Exh. "1-Escao"), but her letters became less frequent as the days passed. As of June, 1948 the newlyweds were already estranged (Exh. "2-Escao"). Vicenta had gone to Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, to escape from the scandal that her marriage stirred in Cebu society. There, a lawyer filed for her a petition, drafted by then Senator Emmanuel Pelaez, to annul her marriage. She did not sign the petition (Exh. "B-5"). The case was dismissed without prejudice because of her non-appearance at the hearing (Exh. "B-4").On 24 June 1950, without informing her husband, she applied for a passport, indicating in her application that she was single, that her purpose was to study, and she was domiciled in Cebu City, and that she intended to return after two years. The application was approved, and she left for the United States. On 22 August 1950, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe, on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." On 21 October 1950, a decree of divorce, "final and absolute", was issued in open court by the said tribunal.In 1951 Mamerto and Mena Escao filed a petition with the Archbishop of Cebu to annul their daughter's marriage to Pastor (Exh. "D"). On 10 September 1954, Vicenta sought papal dispensation of her marriage (Exh. "D"-2).On 13 September 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada. She now lives with him in California, and, by him, has begotten children. She acquired American citizenship on 8 August 1958.But on 30 July 1955, Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and amended on 31 May 1956, against Vicenta F. Escao, her parents, Mamerto and Mena Escao, whom he charged with having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and alienating her affections, and against the Roman Catholic Church, for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal, decreed the annulment of the marriage, and asked for legal separation and one million pesos in damages. Vicenta claimed a valid divorce from plaintiff and an equally valid marriage to her present husband, Russell Leo Moran; while her parents denied that they had in any way influenced their daughter's acts, and counterclaimed for moral damages.The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation, but freed the plaintiff from supporting his wife and to acquire property to the exclusion of his wife. It allowed the counterclaim of Mamerto Escao and Mena Escao for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against the plaintiff-appellant, to the extent of P45,000.00, and plaintiff resorted directly to this Court.The appellant ascribes, as errors of the trial court, the following:1. In not declaring legal separation; in not holding defendant Vicenta F. Escao liable for damages and in dismissing the complaint;.2. In not holding the defendant parents Mamerto Escano and the heirs of Doa Mena Escao liable for damages;.3 In holding the plaintiff liable for and requiring him to pay the damages to the defendant parents on their counterclaims; and.4. In dismissing the complaint and in denying the relief sought by the plaintiff.That on 24 February 1948 the plaintiff-appellant, Pastor Tenchavez, and the defendant-appellee, Vicenta Escao, were validly married to each other, from the standpoint of our civil law, is clearly established by the record before us. Both parties were then above the age of majority, and otherwise qualified; and both consented to the marriage, which was performed by a Catholic priest (army chaplain Lavares) in the presence of competent witnesses. It is nowhere shown that said priest was not duly authorized under civil law to solemnize marriages.The chaplain's alleged lack of ecclesiastical authorization from the parish priest and the Ordinary, as required by Canon law, is irrelevant in our civil law, not only because of the separation of Church and State but also because Act 3613 of the Philippine Legislature (which was the marriage law in force at the time) expressly provided that SEC. 1. Essential requisites. Essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contracting parties and consent. (Emphasis supplied)The actual authority of the solemnizing officer was thus only a formal requirement, and, therefore, not essential to give the marriage civil effects,3and this is emphasized by section 27 of said marriage act, which provided the following:SEC. 27.Failure to comply with formal requirements. No marriage shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several of the formal requirements of this Act if, when it was performed, the spouses or one of them believed in good faith that the person who solemnized the marriage was actually empowered to do so, and that the marriage was perfectly legal.The good faith of all the parties to the marriage (and hence the validity of their marriage) will be presumed until the contrary is positively proved (Lao vs. Dee Tim, 45 Phil. 739, 745; Francisco vs. Jason, 60 Phil. 442, 448). It is well to note here that in the case at bar, doubts as to the authority of the solemnizing priest arose only after the marriage, when Vicenta's parents consulted Father Reynes and the archbishop of Cebu. Moreover, the very act of Vicenta in abandoning her original action for annulment and subsequently suing for divorce implies an admission that her marriage to plaintiff was valid and binding.Defendant Vicenta Escao argues that when she contracted the marriage she was under the undue influence of Pacita Noel, whom she charges to have been in conspiracy with appellant Tenchavez. Even granting, for argument's sake, the truth of that contention, and assuming that Vicenta's consent was vitiated by fraud and undue influence, such vices did not render her marriageab initiovoid, but merely voidable, and the marriage remained valid until annulled by a competent civil court. This was never done, and admittedly, Vicenta's suit for annulment in the Court of First Instance of Misamis was dismissed for non-prosecution.It is equally clear from the record that the valid marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escao remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine law, notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce that the wife sought and obtained on 21 October 1950 from the Second Judicial District Court of Washoe County, State of Nevada, on grounds of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." At the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta Escao, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen.4She was then subject to Philippine law, and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rep. Act No. 386), already in force at the time, expressly provided:Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.The Civil Code of the Philippines, now in force, does not admit absolute divorce,quo ad vinculo matrimonii; and in fact does not even use that term, to further emphasize its restrictive policy on the matter, in contrast to the preceding legislation that admitted absolute divorce on grounds of adultery of the wife or concubinage of the husband (Act 2710). Instead of divorce, the present Civil Code only provides forlegal separation(Title IV, Book 1, Arts. 97 to 108), and, even in that case, it expressly prescribes that "the marriage bonds shall not be severed" (Art. 106, subpar. 1).For the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a foreign decree of absolute divorce betiveen Filipino citizens could be a patent violation of the declared public policy of the state, specially in view of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code that prescribes the following:Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, policy and good customs, shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.Even more, the grant of effectivity in this jurisdiction to such foreign divorce decrees would, in effect, give rise to an irritating and scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens, to the detriment of those members of our polity whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorces outside the Philippines.From this point of view, it is irrelevant that appellant Pastor Tenchavez should have appeared in the Nevada divorce court. Primarily because the policy of our law cannot be nullified by acts of private parties (Civil Code,Art. 17, jam quot.); and additionally, because the mere appearance of a non-resident consort cannot confer jurisdiction where the court originally had none (Area vs. Javier, 95 Phil. 579).From the preceding facts and considerations, there flows as a necessary consequence that in this jurisdiction Vicenta Escao's divorce and second marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid; for her previous union to plaintiff Tenchavez must be declared to be existent and undissolved. It follows, likewise, that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial ofconsortiumand her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (Civil Code, Art. 2176). Neither an unsubstantiated charge of deceit nor an anonymous letter charging immorality against the husband constitute, contrary to her claim, adequate excuse. Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is technically "intercourse with a person not her husband" from the standpoint of Philippine Law, and entitles plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez to a decree of "legal separation under our law, on the basis of adultery" (Revised Penal Code, Art. 333).The foregoing conclusions as to the untoward effect of a marriage after an invalid divorce are in accord with the previous doctrines and rulings of this court on the subject, particularly those that were rendered under our laws prior to the approval of the absolute divorce act (Act 2710 of the Philippine Legislature). As a matter of legal history, our statutes did not recognize divorcesa vinculobefore 1917, when Act 2710 became effective; and the present Civil Code of the Philippines, in disregarding absolute divorces, in effect merely reverted to the policies on the subject prevailing before Act 2710. The rulings, therefore, under the Civil Code of 1889, prior to the Act above-mentioned, are now, fully applicable. Of these, the decision inRamirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855, is of particular interest. Said this Court in that case:As the divorce granted by the French Court must be ignored, it results that the marriage of Dr. Mory and Leona Castro, celebrated in London in 1905, could not legalize their relations; and the circumstance that they afterwards passed for husband and wife in Switzerland until her death is wholly without legal significance. The claims of the very children to participate in the estate of Samuel Bishop must therefore be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated and acknowledged natural children. The children of adulterous relations are wholly excluded. The word "descendants" as used in Article 941 of the Civil Code cannot be interpreted to include illegitimates born ofadulterousrelations. (Emphasis supplied)Except for the fact that the successional rights of the children, begotten from Vicenta's marriage to Leo Moran after the invalid divorce, are not involved in the case at bar, theGmurcase is authority for the proposition that such union is adulterous in this jurisdiction, and, therefore, justifies an action for legal separation on the part of the innocent consort of the first marriage, that stands undissolved in Philippine law. In not so declaring, the trial court committed error.True it is that our ruling gives rise to anomalous situations where the status of a person (whether divorced or not) would depend on the territory where the question arises. Anomalies of this kind are not new in the Philippines, and the answer to them was given inBarretto vs. Gonzales, 58 Phil. 667:The hardship of the existing divorce laws in the Philippine Islands are well known to the members of the Legislature. It is the duty of the Courts to enforce the laws of divorce as written by Legislature if they are constitutional. Courts have no right to say that such laws are too strict or too liberal. (p. 72)The appellant's first assignment of error is, therefore, sustained.However, the plaintiff-appellant's charge that his wife's parents, Dr. Mamerto Escao and his wife, the late Doa Mena Escao, alienated the affections of their daughter and influenced her conduct toward her husband are not supported by credible evidence. The testimony of Pastor Tenchavez about the Escao's animosity toward him strikes us to be merely conjecture and exaggeration, and are belied by Pastor's own letters written before this suit was begun (Exh. "2-Escao" and "Vicenta," Rec. on App., pp. 270-274). In these letters he expressly apologized to the defendants for "misjudging them" and for the "great unhappiness" caused by his "impulsive blunders" and "sinful pride," "effrontery and audacity" [sic]. Plaintiff was admitted to the Escao house to visit and court Vicenta, and the record shows nothing to prove that he would not have been accepted to marry Vicente had he openly asked for her hand, as good manners and breeding demanded. Even after learning of the clandestine marriage, and despite their shock at such unexpected event, the parents of Vicenta proposed and arranged that the marriage be recelebrated in strict conformity with the canons of their religion upon advice that the previous one was canonically defective. If no recelebration of the marriage ceremony was had it was not due to defendants Mamerto Escao and his wife, but to the refusal of Vicenta to proceed with it. That the spouses Escao did not seek to compel or induce their daughter to assent to the recelebration but respected her decision, or that they abided by her resolve, does not constitute in law an alienation of affections. Neither does the fact that Vicenta's parents sent her money while she was in the United States; for it was natural that they should not wish their daughter to live in penury even if they did not concur in her decision to divorce Tenchavez (27 Am. Jur. 130-132).There is no evidence that the parents of Vicenta, out of improper motives, aided and abetted her original suit for annulment, or her subsequent divorce; she appears to have acted independently, and being of age, she was entitled to judge what was best for her and ask that her decisions be respected. Her parents, in so doing, certainly cannot be charged with alienation of affections in the absence of malice or unworthy motives, which have not been shown, good faith being always presumed until the contrary is proved.SEC. 529. Liability of Parents, Guardians or Kin. The law distinguishes between the right of a parent to interest himself in the marital affairs of his child and the absence of rights in a stranger to intermeddle in such affairs. However, such distinction between the liability of parents and that of strangers is only in regard to what will justify interference. A parent isliable for alienation of affections resulting from his own malicious conduct, as where he wrongfully entices his son or daughter to leave his or her spouse, but he is not liable unless he acts maliciously, without justification and from unworthy motives. He is not liable where he acts and advises his child in good faith with respect to his child's marital relations in the interest of his child as he sees it, the marriage of his child not terminating his right and liberty to interest himself in, and be extremely solicitous for, his child's welfare and happiness, even where his conduct and advice suggest or result in the separation of the spouses or the obtaining of a divorce or annulment, or where he acts under mistake or misinformation, or where his advice or interference are indiscreet or unfortunate, although it has been held that the parent is liable for consequences resulting from recklessness. He may in good faith take his child into his home and afford him or her protection and support, so long as he has not maliciously enticed his child away, or does not maliciously entice or cause him or her to stay away, from his or her spouse. This rule has more frequently been applied in the case of advice given to a married daughter, but it is equally applicable in the case of advice given to a son.Plaintiff Tenchavez, in falsely charging Vicenta's aged parents with racial or social discrimination and with having exerted efforts and pressured her to seek annulment and divorce, unquestionably caused them unrest and anxiety, entitling them to recover damages. While this suit may not have been impelled by actual malice, the charges were certainly reckless in the face of the proven facts and circumstances. Court actions are not established for parties to give vent to their prejudices or spleen.In the assessment of the moral damages recoverable by appellant Pastor Tenchavez from defendant Vicente Escao, it is proper to take into account, against his patently unreasonable claim for a million pesos in damages, that (a) the marriage was celebrated in secret, and its failure was not characterized by publicity or undue humiliation on appellant's part; (b) that the parties never lived together; and (c) that there is evidence that appellant had originally agreed to the annulment of the marriage, although such a promise was legally invalid, being against public policy (cf. Art. 88, Civ. Code). While appellant is unable to remarry under our law, this fact is a consequence of the indissoluble character of the union that appellant entered into voluntarily and with open eyes rather than of her divorce and her second marriage. All told, we are of the opinion that appellant should recover P25,000 only by way of moral damages and attorney's fees.With regard to the P45,000 damages awarded to the defendants, Dr. Mamerto Escao and Mena Escao, by the court below, we opine that the same are excessive. While the filing of this unfounded suit must have wounded said defendants' feelings and caused them anxiety, the same could in no way have seriously injured their reputation, or otherwise prejudiced them, lawsuits having become a common occurrence in present society. What is important, and has been correctly established in the decision of the court below, is that said defendants were not guilty of any improper conduct in the whole deplorable affair. This Court, therefore, reduces the damages awarded to P5,000 only.Summing up, the Court rules:(1) That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386), is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country;(2) That the remarriage of divorced wife and her co-habitation with a person other than the lawful husband entitle the latter to a decree of legal separation conformably to Philippine law;(3) That the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one consort entitles the other to recover damages;(4) That an action for alienation of affections against the parents of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of malice or unworthy motives on their part.WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is hereby modified as follows;(1) Adjudging plaintiff-appellant Pastor Tenchavez entitled to a decree of legal separation from defendant Vicenta F. Escao;(2) Sentencing defendant-appellee Vicenta Escao to pay plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez the amount of P25,000 for damages and attorneys' fees;(3) Sentencing appellant Pastor Tenchavez to pay the appellee, Mamerto Escao and the estate of his wife, the deceased Mena Escao, P5,000 by way of damages and attorneys' fees.

G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985ALICE REYES VAN DORN,petitioner,vs.HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTONrespondents.MELENCIO-HERRERA,J.:\In this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn seeks to set aside the Orders, dated September 15, 1983 and August 3, 1984, in Civil Case No. 1075-P, issued by respondent Judge, which denied her Motion to Dismiss said case, and her Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, respectively.The basic background facts are that petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States; that they were married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines; that they begot two children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively; that the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.Dated June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in Civil Case No. 1075-P of the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in Pasay City, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop, for short), is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no community property" as of June 11, 1982. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss in the mentioned case on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case. The denial is now the subject of this certiorari proceeding.Generally, the denial of a Motion to Dismiss in a civil case is interlocutory and is not subject to appeal. certiorari and Prohibition are neither the remedies to question the propriety of an interlocutory order of the trial Court. However, when a grave abuse of discretion was patently committed, or the lower Court acted capriciously and whimsically, then it devolves upon this Court in a certiorari proceeding to exercise its supervisory authority and to correct the error committed which, in such a case, is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.1Prohibition would then lie since it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the proceedings.2Weconsider the petition filed in this case within the exception, and we have given it due course.For resolution is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines.Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings before the American Court that they had no community of property; that the Galleon Shop was not established through conjugal funds, and that respondent's claim is barred by prior judgment.For his part, respondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy; that the acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannot, especially if the same is contrary to public policy, divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction.For the resolution of this case, it is not necessary to determine whether the property relations between petitioner and private respondent, after their marriage, were upon absolute or relative community property, upon complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevadadivorceof the parties.The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had obtained jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before the Court during the trial of the case. It also obtained jurisdiction over private respondent who, giving his address as No. 381 Bush Street, San Francisco, California, authorized his attorneys in the divorce case, Karp & Gradt Ltd., to agree to the divorce on the ground of incompatibility in the understanding that there were neither community property nor community obligations.3As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he executed in favor of the law firm of KARP & GRAD LTD., 336 W. Liberty, Reno, Nevada, to represent him in the divorce proceedings:xxx xxx xxxYou are hereby authorized to accept service of Summons, to file an Answer, appear on my behalf and do an things necessary and proper to represent me, without further contesting, subject to the following:1. That my spouse seeks a divorce on the ground of incompatibility.2. That there is no community of property to be adjudicated by the Court.3. 'I'hat there are no community obligations to be adjudicated by the court.xxx xxx xxx4There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner,as her husband, in any State of the Union. What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code,5only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.6In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under whichdivorce dissolves the marriage. As stated by theFederal Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The marriage tie when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides, in the nature of a penalty. that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage.Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109,et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted, and respondent Judge is hereby ordered to dismiss the Complaint filed in Civil Case No. 1075-P of his Court.G.R. No. 80116 June 30, 1989IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL,petitioner,vs.HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in his capacity as the City Fiscal of Manila; and ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING,respondents.REGALADO,J.:An ill-starred marriage of a Filipina and a foreigner which ended in a foreign absolute divorce, only to be followed by a criminal infidelity suit of the latter against the former, provides Us the opportunity to lay down a decisional rule on what hitherto appears to be an unresolved jurisdictional question.On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. The marriage started auspiciously enough, and the couple lived together for some time in Malate, Manila where their only child, Isabella Pilapil Geiling, was born on April 20, 1980.1Thereafter, marital discord set in, with mutual recriminations between the spouses, followed by a separation de facto between them.After about three and a half years of marriage, such connubial disharmony eventuated in private respondent initiating a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January, 1983. He claimed that there was failure of their marriage and that they had been living apart since April, 1982.2Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXII, on January 23, 1983 where the same is still pending as Civil Case No. 83-15866.3On January 15, 1986, Division 20 of the Schoneberg Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to petitioner. The records show that under German law said court was locally and internationally competent for the divorce proceeding and that the dissolution of said marriage was legally founded on and authorized by the applicable law of that foreign jurisdiction.4On June 27, 1986, or more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that, while still married to said respondent, petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia as early as 1982 and with yet another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983". Assistant Fiscal Jacinto A. de los Reyes, Jr., after the corresponding investigation, recommended the dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.5However, upon review, the respondent city fiscal approved a resolution, dated January 8, 1986, directing the filing of two complaints for adultery against the petitioner.6The complaints were accordingly filed and were eventually raffled to two branches of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The case entitled"People of the Philippines vs. Imelda Pilapil and William Chia",docketed as Criminal Case No. 87-52435, was assigned to Branch XXVI presided by the respondent judge; while the other case,"People of the Philippines vs. Imelda Pilapil and James Chua", docketed as Criminal Case No. 87-52434 went to the sala of Judge Leonardo Cruz, Branch XXV, of the same court.7On March 14, 1987, petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary of Justice asking that the aforesaid resolution of respondent fiscal be set aside and the cases against her be dismissed.8A similar petition was filed by James Chua, her co-accused in Criminal Case No. 87-52434. The Secretary of Justice, through the Chief State Prosecutor, gave due course to both petitions and directed the respondent city fiscal to inform the Department of Justice "if the accused have already been arraigned and if not yet arraigned, to move to defer further proceedings" and to elevate the entire records of both cases to his office for review.9Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment and to suspend further proceedings thereon.10As a consequence, Judge Leonardo Cruz suspended proceedings in Criminal Case No. 87-52434. On the other hand, respondent judge merely reset the date of the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 87-52435 to April 6, 1987. Before such scheduled date, petitioner moved for the cancellation of the arraignment and for the suspension of proceedings in said Criminal Case No. 87-52435 until after the resolution of the petition for review then pending before the Secretary of Justice.11A motion to quash was also filed in the same case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,12which motion was denied by the respondent judge in an order dated September 8, 1987. The same order also directed the arraignment of both accused therein, that is, petitioner and William Chia. The latter entered a plea of not guilty while the petitioner refused to be arraigned. Such refusal of the petitioner being considered by respondent judge as direct contempt, she and her counsel were fined and the former was ordered detained until she submitted herself for arraignment.13Later, private respondent entered a plea of not guilty.14On October 27, 1987, petitioner filed this special civil action forcertiorariand prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to quash. The petition is anchored on the main ground that the court is without jurisdiction "to try and decide the charge of adultery, which is a private offense that cannot be prosecutedde officio(sic), since the purported complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint."15On October 21, 1987, this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents from implementing the aforesaid order of September 8, 1987 and from further proceeding with Criminal Case No. 87-52435. Subsequently, on March 23, 1988 Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordoez acted on the aforesaid petitions for review and, upholding petitioner's ratiocinations, issued a resolution directing the respondent city fiscal to move for the dismissal of the complaints against the petitioner.16We find this petition meritorious. The writs prayed for shall accordingly issue.Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code,17the crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by theoffended spouse. It has long since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement.18While in point of strict law the jurisdiction of the court over the offense is vested in it by the Judiciary Law, the requirement for a sworn written complaint is just as jurisdictional a mandate since it is that complaint which starts the prosecutory proceeding19and without which the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to try the case.Now, the law specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse, and nobody else. Unlike the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, no provision is made for the prosecution of the crimes of adultery and concubinage by the parents, grandparents or guardian of the offended party. The so-called exclusive and successive rule in the prosecution of the first four offenses above mentioned do not apply to adultery and concubinage. It is significant that while the State, asparens patriae, was added and vested by the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure with the power to initiate the criminal action for a deceased or incapacitated victim in the aforesaid offenses of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, in default of her parents, grandparents or guardian, such amendment did not include the crimes of adultery and concubinage. In other words, only the offended spouse, and no other, is authorized by law to initiate the action therefor.Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action. This is a familiar and express rule in civil actions; in fact, lack of legal capacity to sue, as a ground for a motion to dismiss in civil cases, is determined as of the filing of the complaint or petition.The absence of an equivalent explicit rule in the prosecution of criminal cases does not mean that the same requirement and rationale would not apply. Understandably, it may not have been found necessary since criminal actions are generally and fundamentally commenced by the State, through the People of the Philippines, the offended party being merely the complaining witness therein. However, in the so-called "private crimes" or those which cannot be prosecutedde oficio, and the present prosecution for adultery is of such genre, the offended spouse assumes a more predominant role since the right to commence the action, or to refrain therefrom, is a matter exclusively within his power and option.This policy was adopted out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial.20Hence, as cogently argued by petitioner, Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code thus presupposes that the marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action for, adultery. This is a logical consequence since theraison d'etreof said provision of law would be absent where the supposed offended party had ceased to be the spouse of the alleged offender at the time of the filing of the criminal case.21In these cases, therefore, it is indispensable that the status and capacity of the complainant to commence the action be definitely established and, as already demonstrated, such status or capacity must indubitably exist as of the time he initiates the action. It would be absurd if his capacity to bring the action would be determined by his statusbeforeorsubsequentto the commencement thereof, where such capacity or status existed prior to but ceased before, or was acquired subsequent to but did not exist at the time of, the institution of the case. We would thereby have the anomalous spectacle of a party bringing suit at the very time when he is without the legal capacity to do so.To repeat, there does not appear to be any local precedential jurisprudence on the specific issue as to when precisely the status of a complainant as an offended spouse must exist where a criminal prosecution can be commenced only by one who in law can be categorized as possessed of such status. Stated differently and with reference to the present case, the inquiry ;would be whether it is necessary in the commencement of a criminal action for adultery that the marital bonds between the complainant and the accused be unsevered and existing at the time of the institution of the action by the former against the latter.American jurisprudence, on cases involving statutes in that jurisdiction which arein pari materiawith ours, yields the rule thatafter a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute proceedings against the offenderswhere the statute provides that the innocent spouse shall have the exclusive right to institute a prosecution for adultery. Where, however, proceedings have been properly commenced, a divorce subsequently granted can have no legal effect on the prosecution of the criminal proceedings to a conclusion.22In the citedLoftuscase, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that 'No prosecution for adultery can be commenced except on the complaint of the husband or wife.' Section 4932, Code.Though Loftus was husband of defendant when the offense is said to have been committed, he had ceased to be such when the prosecution was begun; and appellant insists that his status was not such as to entitle him to make the complaint. We have repeatedly said that the offense is against the unoffending spouse, as well as the state, in explaining the reason for this provision in the statute; and we are of the opinion thatthe unoffending spouse must be such when the prosecution is commenced. (Emphasis supplied.)We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule should not apply in this case and in our jurisdiction, considering our statutory law and jural policy on the matter. We are convinced that in cases of such nature, the status of the complainant vis-a-vis the accused must be determined as of the time the complaint was filed. Thus, the person who initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that he is still married to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint.In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned23in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons.Thus, in the recent case ofVan Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr., et al.,24after a divorce was granted by a United States court between Alice Van Dornja Filipina, and her American husband, the latter filed a civil case in a trial court here alleging that her business concern was conjugal property and praying that she be ordered to render an accounting and that the plaintiff be granted the right to manage the business. Rejecting his pretensions, this Court perspicuously demonstrated the error of such stance, thus:There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union. ...It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. ...Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. ...25Under the same considerations and rationale, private respondent, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.The allegation of private respondent that he could not have brought this case before the decree of divorce for lack of knowledge, even if true, is of no legal significance or consequence in this case. When said respondent initiated the divorce proceeding, he obviously knew that there would no longer be a family nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the marriage is decreed. Neither would there be a danger of introducing spurious heirs into the family, which is said to be one of the reasons for the particular formulation of our law on adultery,26since there would thenceforth be no spousal relationship to speak of. The severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former spouses from each other, hence the actuations of one would not affect or cast obloquy on the other.The aforecited case ofUnited States vs. Matacannot be successfully relied upon by private respondent. In applying Article 433 of the old Penal Code, substantially the same as Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, which punished adultery "although the marriage be afterwards declared void", the Court merely stated that "the lawmakers intended to declare adulterous the infidelity of a married woman to her marital vows, even though it should be made to appear that she is entitled to have her marriage contract declared null and void, until and unless she actually secures a formal judicial declaration to that effect". Definitely, it cannot be logically inferred therefrom that the complaint can still be filed after the declaration of nullity because such declaration that the marriage is voidab initiois equivalent to stating that it never existed. There being no marriage from the beginning, any complaint for adultery filed after said declaration of nullity would no longer have a leg to stand on. Moreover, what was consequently contemplated and within the purview of the decision in said case is the situation where the criminal action for adultery was filedbeforethe termination of the marriage by a judicial declaration of its nullityab initio. The same rule and requisite would necessarily apply where the termination of the marriage was effected, as in this case, by a valid foreign divorce.Private respondent's invocation ofDonio-Teves, et al. vs. Vamenta,hereinbefore cited,27must suffer the same fate of inapplicability. A cursory reading of said case reveals that the offended spouse therein had duly and seasonably filed a complaint for adultery, although an issue was raised as to its sufficiency but which was resolved in favor of the complainant. Said case did not involve a factual situation akin to the one at bar or any issue determinative of the controversy herein.WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying petitioner's motion to quash isSET ASIDEand another one enteredDISMISSINGthe complaint in Criminal Case No. 87-52435 for lack of jurisdiction. The temporary restraining order issued in this case on October 21, 1987 is hereby made permanent.SO ORDERED.Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.Separate OpinionsPARAS,J.,concurring:It is my considered opinion that regardless of whether We consider the German absolute divorce as valid also in the Philippines, the fact is that the husband in the instant case, by the very act of his obtaining an absolute divorce in Germany can no longer be considered as the offended party in case his former wife actually has carnal knowledge with another, because in divorcing her, he already implicitly authorized the woman to have sexual relations with others. A contrary ruling would be less than fair for a man, who is free to have sex will be allowed to deprive the woman of the same privilege.In the case ofRecto v. Harden(100 Phil. 427 [1956]), the Supreme Court considered the absolute divorce between the American husband and his American wife as valid and binding in the Philippines on the theory that their status and capacity are governed by theirNational law, namely, American law. There is no decision yet of the Supreme Court regarding the validity of such a divorce if one of the parties, say an American, is married to a Filipino wife, for then two (2) different nationalities would be involved.In the book of Senate President Jovito Salonga entitled Private International Law and precisely because of theNational lawdoctrine, he considers the absolute divorce as valid insofar as the American husband is concerned but void insofar as the Filipino wife is involved. This results in what he calls a "socially grotesque situation," where a Filipino woman is still married to a man who is no longer her husband. It is the opinion however, of the undersigned that very likely the opposite expresses the correct view. While under thenational lawof the husband the absolute divorce will be valid, still one of the exceptions to the application of the proper foreign law (one of the exceptions to comity) is when the foreign law will work an injustice or injury