GRACE 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.
