B.

IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT Ignorance of the Law excuses on

one.
- Ignorance of foreign law is not ignorance of the law, but ignorance of the fact
because foreign laws must be alleged and proved as matters of fact.
ARTICLE 3 (Concepts and Application) Ignorance of the Law excuses no
one from compliance therewith.
Processual Presumption : If the foreign law is not alleged or prved, the
presumption is that it is the same with our law.

November 24, 1988

G.R. no. L-55960
YAO KEE, SZE SOOK WAH, SZE LAI CHO, SZE CHUN YEN *******petitioner
V.
AIDA SY-GONZALES, MANUEL SY, TERRESITA SY -BERNABE, RODOLFO SY, and
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS *******respondents
FACTS:
Sy-Kiat, a Chinese national, died in 1977 in Caloocan City, where he was residing,
leaving behind substantial real and perFsonal properties here in the Phils. Petition for letters of
administration filed by his natural children, was opposed on the ground that Sy Kiat was legally
married to Yao Kee, in Fookien, China on 1/13/31 and that the oppositors are the legitimate
children. The probate court rendered judgment in favor of the oppositors; this was modified and
set aside by the Court of Appeals w/c held that both sets of children were acknowledged natural
children. Both parties moved for partial reconsideration refering the following as errors:
(1) Respondent Court of Appeals seriously erred in declaring the marriages of Sy Kiat to
Yao Kee as not have been proven valid in accordance with laws of the Peoples Republic of
China.
(2) Respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in declaring Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel
Sy, Terresita Sy Bernabe, Rodolfo Sy as natural children of Sy Kiat with Asuncion Gillego.
The Petitioners claims the following:
(1) That the marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee in accordance with Chinese law and custom was
conclusively proven.
- they rely on their testimonies (Yao Kee and Ganching younger brother)
- statements of Asuncion Gillego when she testified before the trial court that Sy Kiat was
married to Yao Kee and that he has a Chinese wife whom he married according to Chinese
custom
- Sy Kiats Master card of Registered Alien where he indicated that Yao Kee is his wife
having the address in China, with their date of marriage 1931
- Sy Kiats Alien Certificate of Registration issued in Manila on January 12 1968
indicates the same entries
- According to the certification issued in Manila on Oct 28, 1977 by the Embassy of the
Peoples Republic of China, that Mr. Sy Kiat and Mrs Yao Kee alias Yui Yip were married on
January 19, 1931 in Fukein, China.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the marriage of Sy Kiat and Yao Kee is valid?
(2) Whether or not the presented evidences of Yao and Gan Ching are valid proof of Chinas
law or custom on marriage?
RULINGS:
(1) The marriage of Sy Kiat and Yao Kee is invalid.
a. Under the Law Article 3 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, processual
presumption states that if the foreign law is not properly alleged and proved,
the presumption is that it is the same as our law.
- The marriage document that Yao Kee pertains to, was signed by both
parties but there is no solemnizing officer as is known in the
Philippines and no marriage certificate was issued by the Chinese
government.
b. The evidences presented by the Petitioners may very well prove the fact of
marriage bet. Yao Kee and Sy Kiat, however, the same do not suffice to
establish the validity of said marriage in accordance with Chinese law or
custom. The custom must have to be proven as a fact, according to the rules of
evidence. (Article 12, Civil Code)
(2) Petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law and customs of
China on marriage. The testimonies of Yao and Gan Ching cannot be considered as
proof of China's law or custom on marriage not only because they are self-serving
evidence, but more importantly, there is no showing that they are competent to testify
on the subject matter. For failure to prove the foreign law or custom, the validity of
the marriage in accordance with said law or custom, the marriage between Yao Kee
and Sy Kiat cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.
A custom is a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed
or practiced as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.