GRACE J
GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, vs.
REDERICK A. RECIO, respondent.
G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Procedural History
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our
jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the
national law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the
governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce
must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
laws and judgments; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce
decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven
according to our law on evidence.
Facts:
The respondent, Rederick Recio, a Filipino was married to Editha
Samson, an Australian citizen, in Rizal in 1987. They lived
together as husband and wife in Australia. In 1989, the Australian
family court issued a decree of divorce supposedly dissolving the
marriage. In 1992, respondent acquired Australian citizenship. In
1994, he married Grace Garcia, a Filipina, herein petitioner,
inCabanatuan City. In their application for marriage license,
respondent was declared as single and Filipino. Since October 1995,
they lived separately, and in 1996 while in Australia, their
conjugal assets were divided. In 1998, petitioner filed Complaint
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy,
claiming that she learned of the respondents former marriage only
in November. On the other hand, respondent claims that he told
petitioner of his prior marriage in 1993, before they were married.
Respondent also contended that his first marriage was dissolved by
a divorce a decree obtained in Australia in 1989 and hence, he was
legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. The trial court
declared that the first marriage was dissolved on the ground of the
divorce issued in Australia as valid and recognized in the
Philippines. Hence, this petition was forwarded before the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to marry Grace
Garcia.
Answer:
No, the respondent did not absolutely establish his legal
capacity to remarry according to his national law.
Reasoning
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. A divorce obtained
abroad by two aliens, may be recognized in thePhilippines, provided
it is consistent with their respective laws. Therefore, before our
courts can recognize a foreign divorce, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the
foreign law allowing it. In this case, the divorce decree between
the respondent and
Samson appears to be authentic, issued by an Australian family
court. Although, appearance is not sufficient, and compliance with
the rules on evidence regarding alleged foreign laws must be
demonstrated, the decree was admitted on account of petitioners
failure to object properly because he objected to the fact that it
was not registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City,
not to its admissibility. Respondent claims that the Australian
divorce decree, which was validly admitted as evidence, adequately
established his legal capacity to marry under Australian law. Even
after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some
foreign statutes, still restrict remarriage. Respondent also failed
to produce sufficient evidence showing the foreign law governing
his status. Together with other evidences submitted, they dont
absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry.
Holding:
The interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, we
REMAND the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving
evidence which conclusively show respondents legal capacity to
marry petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the parties
marriage void on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed. No
costs.
