GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, vs. REDERICK A. RECIO, respondent G.R. No.

138322 October 2, 2001 Facts: Rederick, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987. Theylived together as husband and wife in Australia. On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce purportedly dissolving the marriagewas issued by an Australian Family Court. On 26 June 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen, as shown by aCertificate of Australian Citizenship issued by an Australian government. Subsequently, Recio-Garcia nuptial took place in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City on January 12, 1994. In their marriage application for marriage license, respondent was declared as single and Filipino. Since October 22, 1995 Garcia and Recio lived separately without prior dissolution of their marriage. While theywere still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 1996, in accordance with their declaration secured inAustralia.March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the trial court, on the ground of bigamyrespondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her in 1994. She claimed that she only learned of Recios marriage to Samson in November 1997. In his answer, Recio averred that as of 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage to an Australiancitizen, that it had been validly dissolved by decree of divorce in 1989, making him legally capacitated to marry petitionerin 1994. Issues: 1. Whether or not a Filipino, who became a naturalized Australian citizen, is still bound by Philippine Laws. 2 . Whether or not the respondent has legal capacity to marry the petitioner after the Australian decree of divorce. 3. Whether or not a former Filipino need not to present any document proving his divorced marriage with a foreigner which he obtained abroad. Held:

1. No. Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13, and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary; respondent was nolonger bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. Naturalization is thelegal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the political and civil rights belonging to a citizen. 2 . No. In this case, respondent failed to prove his legal capacity to remarry even if he showed the Australian divorce decree, which he said was a public document, a written official act of an Australian family court, and thus needsno further proof of authenticity and due execution. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facieevidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license. The Court ruled thatpresentation solely of the divorce decree, which is what the respondent did, is insufficient. 3 . Yes. The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. Since the divorce was a defense raised by the respondent, the burden ofproving the pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him. The Court still stands that compliancewith the rules on evidence must be demonstrated. WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantive justice, we REMAND the case to the court a quofor the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner; and failingin that, of declaring the parties marriage on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed. No costs. SO ORDERED.