PERSONS and FAMILY RELATIONS

A.Y. 1819– ATTY. AMPY STA. MARIA

ARTICLE and TOPIC Art 26, Proof of Foreign Marriage

CASE NAME Board of Commissioners (CID) v Dela Rosa, 197 SCRA 853

GROUP MEMBER Tim Ebuengan

Pertinent Facts

• In 1960, William Gatchalian (12 yr old that time) arrived in the Philippines with his family

Family Tree:
(Pablo and Marciana were
Pablo Pacheco (Chinese) - Marciana Gatchalian (native born Filipino citizen) NOT married)

Santiago Gatchalian(Filipino) – Chu Gim Tee (Chinese) (Santiago Gatchalian is Filipino

at birth, being the legitimate
child of a Filipino woman.)
Jose, Gloria, Elena, Benjamin, Francisco (natural born Filipino) Ong Chiu Kiok (Chinese)

William and Johnson

• Issue: Santiago Gatchalian's marriage with Chu Gim Tee in China as well as the marriage of
Francisco (father of William) Gatchalian to Ong Chiu Kiok, likewise in China, were not supported by
any evidence other than their own self-serving testimony nor was there any showing what the laws of
China were. It is the postulate advanced by petitioners that for the said marriages to be valid in this
country, it should have been shown that they were valid by the laws of China wherein the same were
contracted. There being none, petitioners conclude that the aforesaid marriages cannot be
considered valid. Hence, Santiago's children, including Francisco, followed the citizenship of their
mother, having been born outside of a valid marriage. Similarly, the validity of the Francisco's
marriage not having been demonstrated, William and Johnson followed the citizenship of their
mother, a Chinese national.
• There being no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there arises the presumption that it is
the same as that of Philippine law. The lack of proof of Chinese law on the matter cannot be
blamed on Santiago Gatchalian much more on respondent William Gatchalian who was then a
twelve-year old minor. The fact is, as records indicate, Santiago was not pressed by the Citizenship
Investigation Board to prove the laws of China relating to marriage, having been content with the
testimony of Santiago that the Marriage Certificate was lost or destroyed during the Japanese
occupation of China.
• Having declared the assailed marriages as valid, respondent William Gatchalian follows the
citizenship of his father Francisco, a Filipino, as a legitimate child of the latter. Francisco, in turn, is
likewise a Filipino being the legitimate child of Santiago Gatchalian who (the latter) is admittedly a
Filipino citizen whose Philippine citizenship was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration in an
order dated July 12, 1960. Finally, respondent William Gatchalian belongs to the class of Filipino

1
 PERSONS and FAMILY RELATIONS
A.Y. 1819– ATTY. AMPY STA. MARIA

citizens contemplated under Sec. 1, Article IV of the Constitution, which provides: “Section 1. the
following are citizens of the Philippines: “(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution. xxx”

Relevance to Subtopic/Article (You may refer to the book)

In previous cases decided by the Supreme Court (prior to this case), it has been held that the burden proof to
show the fact of marriage and foreign marital law is upon the one who asserts the validity of the marriage
celebrated abroad. However, in this case, the SC held that, when in doubt, all presumptions favor the
solidarity and every intendment of the law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, “he who asserts
that the marriage is NOT VALID under our law bears the burden of proof to present the foreign
law.”