Ching Huat v. Co Heong, 77 Phil.

988

FACTS:

Petitioner prays that the respondent produce minor Maria Ching, and for the respondent to
prove his custody over said minor and for the court to award custody to the petitioner.
Petitioner opines that the 15 year old Maria Ching, his daughter, and that due to her strong
connections with the respondent, she was convinced to elope with him and marry in Plaridel
Bulacan. He further alleges that the respondent has been married to Gue Min, a marriage that
was contracted in China and is still subsisting. Respondent however argues that he and Maria
Ching validly contracted a marriage which was solemnized before the justice of peace in
Plaridel, Bulacan and that they complied with all the essential requisites.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage between the respondent and Maria Ching was valid?

If so, whether or not the petitioner retains custody over Maria Ching?

RULING:

Yes the marriage between the respondent and Maria Ching was valid. The fact of the civil
marriage between the respondent and Maria Ching, and that they complied with all the
requisites goes to show the validity of the marriage. With respect to the alleged marriage of the
respondent with Gue Min in China, the court cites Adeong v Cheng See in explaining that to
prove a foreign marriage there has to be clear and substantial evidence of not only the foreign
law that governs such marriages and but also the marriage contracted. In this case the
petitioner shows evidence to prove neither. In light of this it is in the opinion of the court that
there was no marriage between the respondent and Gue Min and that his marriage with Maria
Ching was valid.

Anent the second issue, with the marriage between the respondent and Maria Ching proven to
be valid, it is a logical consequence that Maria Ching has been emancipated from the parental
authority of her father.