Garcia-Recio vs.

Recio 366 SCRA 437

G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001
Description of the Case:
Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo,
on the ground of bigamy alleging respondent was not legally capacitated to marry
because of his prior subsisting marriage on an Australian citizen.
Facts:
Rederick Recio, a Filipino who was then naturalized Australian citizen, was
married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on March 1,
1987. They lived as husband and wife in Australia. However, an Australian court
issued a divorce decree, dissolving the marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18,
1989.
On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace Garcia where it was solemnized at Our
lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Starting October 22, 1995, the
petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their
marriage. While they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were then divided
in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia. The petitioner
then filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy
on March 3, 1998, claiming that she learned only that Redricks prior marriage to
Editha Samson in November 1997.
Issue:
Is the divorce decree obtained by the respondent in Australia an absolute
evidence to prove his legal capacity to contract in the second marriage and be
absolved of bigamy?

Ruling:
No. Under the Australian law, he was really capacitated to marry petitioner as
he obtained a divorce decree but then the respondent failed to establish and
present in court a certificate of legal capacity required by Article 21 of the Family
Code and has not submitted it together with the application for a marriage license.
Based on the records, the court cannot conclude that respondent who was then a
naturalized Australian citizen was legally capacitated to marry petitioner. Neither
can the court grant petitioners prayer to declare her marriage null and void on the
ground of bigamy.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court a quo for the purpose of
receiving evidence to show the respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner and
failing in that then the court a quo declares a nullity of the parties marriage on the
ground of bigamy, as there are already evidences of two existing marriage
certificates, which were both obtained in the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro
Manila dated March 1, 1987 and the other, in Cabanatuan City dated January 12,
1994. Petitioner was affirmed in her Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy against the respondent.

Petition granted.