RACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, v. REDERICK A.

RECIO, respondent.
G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001

FACTS:

Respondent Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian

citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on March 1, 1987. They lived together as husband and wife in
Australia. On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage,
was issued by an Australian family court. On June 26, 1992, respondent became an
Australian citizen and was married again to petitioner Grace Garcia-Recio, a Filipina on
January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City. In their application for a marriage license,
respondent was declared as “single” and “Filipino.”

Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior
judicial dissolution of their marriage.

On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on

the ground of bigamy. Respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time
he married her. On his Answer, Rederick contended that his first marriage was validly
dissolved; thus, he was legally capacitated to marry Grace.

On July 7, 1998 or about five years after the couple’s wedding and while the suit for the
declaration of nullity was pending , respondent was able to secure a divorce decree
from a family court in Sydney, Australia because the “marriage had irretrievably broken
down.”

The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage of Rederick and Grace Recio dissolved
on the ground that the Australian divorce had ended the marriage of the couple thus
there was no more marital union to nullify or annul.

ISSUE:

1.) Whether or not the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven.

2.) Whether or not respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner

RULING:

1st issue:

The Supreme Court ruled that the mere presentation of the divorce decree of
respondent’s marriage to Samson is insufficient. Before a foreign divorce decree can be
recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Furthermore, the divorce
decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one issued
by an Australian family court. However, appearance is not sufficient; compliance with
the aforementioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated.

2nd issue:

Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:

“1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute
(unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy.”
This quotation bolsters our contention that the divorrecce obtained by respondent may
have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry
according to his national law. Hence, the Court find no basis for the ruling of the trial
court, which erroneously assumed that the Australian divorce ipso facto restored
respondent’s capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving
evidence. The Court mentioned that they cannot grant petitioner’s prayer to declare her
marriage to respondent null and void because of the question on latter’s legal capacity
to marry.

Persons Case Digest: Garcia – Recio vs Recio

Garcia – Recio vs Recio

GR 138322, October 2, 2002

Lessons Applicable: divorce

Laws Applicable: Art. 15 and Art. 26 par. 2 FC

FACTS:

Grace J. Garcia-Recio (2nd mariage) ----- Rederick A. Recio à Editha Samson (Wife)

 March 1, 1987: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino was married to Editha

Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal

 May 18, 1989: a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage,

was issued by an Australian family court
  June 26, 1992: Recio became an Australian citizen, as shown by a
"Certificate of Australian Citizenship" issued by the Australian government

 January 12, 1994: Recio married Grace j. Garcia, a Filipino, in

Cabanatuan City. Recio declared himself as "single" and "Filipino."

 October 22, 1995: Recio and Grace J. Garcia ak.a. Garcia-Recio begun to
live separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage

 May 16, 1996: In accordance to the Statutory Declarations secured in

Australia, their conjugal assets were divided

 March 3, 1998: Garcia-Recio filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage on the ground of bigamy claiming she only learned of the prior
marriage in November, 1997

o Recio prayed in his answer that it be dismissed for no cause of

action

 RTC: marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia
was valid and recognized in the Philippines

ISSUE: W/N the divorce between Recio and Samson was valid and proven

HELD: NO. Remand the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence
which conclusively show respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner; and failing in
that, of declaring the parties' marriage void on the ground of bigamy

 Divorces:

1. A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained

abroad, because of Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code.
2. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code
allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is "validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry."
3. A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.

 Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party
pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity
to the foreign law allowing it

o legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party
concerned
o A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself
§ The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an officially body or tribunal
of a foreign country
o Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may
be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either:
1. an official publication; or
2. a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document.
If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:
1. accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept;
and
2. authenticated by the seal of his office

 Since the divorce was a defense raised by Recio, the burden of proving
the pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him

 In its strict legal sense, divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful
union for a cause arising after marriage. But divorces are of different
types:

1. absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii - terminates the marriage

2. limited divorce or a mensa et thoro - suspends it and leaves the bond in full force

 Recio presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree – a conditional or

provisional judgment of divorce

o On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:
"1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute
(unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy."

Garcia-Recio vs. Recio

TITLE: Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A. Recio

CITATION: GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002 | 366 SCRA 437

FACTS:

Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, 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 family court issued purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving
the marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989.

On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia where it was solemnized at
Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Since October 22, 1995, the
couple lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. As a matter of
fact, while they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16,
1996, in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.

Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy
on March 3, 1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997, Rederick’s
marriage with Editha Samson.

ISSUE: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick Recio is admissible as

evidence to prove his legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

HELD:

The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued
was valid and recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized
Australian. However, there is absolutely no evidence that proves respondent’s legal
capacity to marry petitioner though the former presented a divorce decree. The said
decree, being a foreign document was inadmissible to court as evidence primarily
because it was not authenticated by the consul/ embassy of the country where it will be
used.

Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a

public or official record of a foreign country by either:

(1) an official publication or

(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the
record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:

(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular

officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept and

(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan
City to receive or trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondent’s legal capacity
to marry petitioner and thus free him on the ground of bigamy.

Garcia v. Recio

G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001

FACTS:

Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in

Malabon, Rizal. They lived as husband and wife in Australia. However, an Australian
family court issued purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of Rederick
and Editha.

Recio married Grace J. Garcia at Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City.
Since October 22, 1995, the couple lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of
their marriage. While they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided in
accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in accordance with their Statutory
Declarations secured in Australia.

Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy
on March 3, 1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997 of Rederick’s
marriage with Editha Samson.

ISSUE:

Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Recio is admissible as evidence to prove

his legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

RULING:

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A
marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad,
because of Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino
and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a
subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry.[26] A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are
both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines,provided it is consistent with the
irrespective nation allows.

A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof are
concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may obtain
divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law.Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be
recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation solely ofthe
divorce decree is insufficient.

Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may
be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official
publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the
document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a)
accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
Philippine Foreign Service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept
and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued
was valid and recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized
Australian. However, there is absolutely no evidence that proves respondent’s legal
capacity to marry petitioner though the former presented a divorce decree. The said
decree, being a foreign document was inadmissible to court as evidence primarily
because it was not authenticated by the consul/embassy of the country where it will be
used.

Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan
City to receive or trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondent’s legal capacityto
marry petitionerand thus free him on the groundof bigamy.