Docket Number: No. L-1211 Ponente: HILADO FACTS: Petitioner, Ching Huat filed a writ of habeas corpus to produce his minor child, Maria Ching alias Avelina Ching and require respondent, Co Heong, to justify his right to the custody over his child. Huat alleged Co Heong for persuading and inducing his 15 years old child, Maria Ching to elope with the latter to Plaridel, Bulacan, where they married the following day before the Justice of the Peace. Huat further alleged that respondent has been married to Gue Min, and that such marriage was contracted in China is still subsisting. Respondent however argues that he and Maria Ching were legally married, that they met the essential requisites for marriage hence a Local Civil Registrar certificate to attest their marriage was issued. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner retains his right to the custody of his minor daughter. RULING: No. The marriage between Maria Ching and respondent was valid, hence, the marriage of a Maria Ching emancipates her and brings about the loss by the father of his parental authority. Because the marriage was contracted by a man much over 16 years old with a girl 15 years old (Act No. 3613, Section 2) and neither of whom was included in any of the exceptions mentioned in Section 28 nor in Section 29 of the same Act, both respondent and Ching’s civil marriage by the Justice of the Peace is therefore undisputed. On the other hand, Article 48 of Chapter V of the Spanish Marriage Law of 1870, whose articles 44 to 78 are now partly in force in the Philippines states that the wife has the duty, among others, of living in her husband's company and of following him to wherever he transfers his domicile or residence. As for the alleged Marriage abroad, Act No. 3613, Section 19 of the Marriage Law provides that “All marriages performed outside of the Philippine Islands in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed and valid there as such, shall also be valid in these Islands." In this case, there is no competent testimony as to what the laws of China concerning marriage were and there is lacking proof to produce a moral conviction of the existence of the alleged prior Chinese marriage. The complete absence of proof of the supposed former Chinese marriage makes Sections 29 and 30 of the Marriage Law inapplicable. In these circumstances, every presumption is in favor of the validity and good faith of the Philippine marriage, and sound reason requires that the marriage of Heong and Ching be not impugned and discredited by the alleged prior marriage. Petition is hereby, dismissed, with costs to petitioner.