Recio Garcia V Recio (Digest)

THIRD DIVISION
Garcia-Recho v. Garcia
G.R. NO. 138322 2 October 2001 Panganiban, J.
ARTICLE INVOLVED: Created by: Rochelle
Petitioners: Respondents:
GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO REDERICK A. RECIO
RECIT READT SUMMARY:
Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on
March 1, 1987. On June 1992, respondent became an Australian Citizen. On January 1994 respondent
married Filipina, Grace Garcia in Cabanatuan. Respondent declared that he was single and was a Filipino
in their application for a marriage license. In 1995, they started living together separately.
Subsequently, petitioner filed for divorce on the ground of bigamy as respondent was allegedly married
before their marriage. Respondent denied such and argued that he had informed petitioner prior to
their marriage and had his previous marriage dissolved. While the case was pending, respondent filed
for a dissolution of marriage with petitioner which was granted. Respondent now prayed before the
court to dismiss the case on the ground that there was no more cause of action and the OSG agreed
stating that the divorce was validly obtained and recognized in the Philippines, therefore, there was no
marriage to annul. Petitioner challenged the decision hence the petition.
Facts of the Case:
1. Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon,
Rizal, on March 1, 1987.
2. June 26, 1992 respondent became an Australian citizen. Petitioner, a Filipina, and respondent
were married in January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City. In the application of their marriage
license, respondent declared that he was single and a Filipino.
3. In October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent starting living separately without the judicial
dissolution of their marriage. Their conjugal assets were divided in accordance to their
Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.
4. On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the
grounds of bigamy. Petitioner claims that respondent had a subsisting marriage prior to their
own. She had only known about it on November, 1997.
5. Respondent argues that since 1993 he had revealed to the petitioner his prior marriage and its
dissolution in 1989. Subsequently, while the case was pending, the respondent secured a
divorce decree from the family court in Sydney, Australia. Furthermore, Garcia prayed in his
Answer for the dismissal of the case as there was no cause of action needed. The OSG agreed
with the respondent on the ground that the divorce was valid and recognized in the Philippines.
The marriage was ended not due to the lack of capacity to marry as alleged by the petitioner
but because there was no more marital union to annul.
Issues: Ruling:
1. WON the trial court erred in declaring
that decree obtained dissolving
respondent’s previous marriage was ipso
facto valid.
2. WON respondent was legally capacitated
to marry petitioner
Rationale:
DIVORCE OF THE RESPONDENT AND EDITHA SAMSON
1. Adong v. Cheong Seng See: the foreign judgement may only be given jurisdiction only upon
proof of the existence of: (1) foreign law allowing the absolute divorce or (2) the alleged divorce
decree itself. She argues that respondent failed to establish these elementS.
2. Art. 26 of the Family Code: Marriages solemnized abroad are governed by the laws in where it
was celebrated. Thus, the presentation of the foreign law to show conformity of the marriage in
question to the legal requirements of the place where the marriage was performed.
NOTE: The Philippines does not recognize absolute divorce of two Filipinos even if it was obtained
abroad. However, in mixed marriages, Art. 26 of the Family Code applies. Wherein, the Filipino is
allowed to remarry. A couple who are both aliens who obtain a divorce abroad may be recognized
in the Philippines provided it is consistent with their respective national laws (Van Dorn v. Romillo
Jr.- T he party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the
foreign law allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.)
3. Divorce as a Question of Fact:
- Petitioner insists that before a divorce decree can be admitted in evidence, it must first comply
with the registration requirements under Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code.
- Respondent argued that the divorce decree is ia public document -- a written official act of an
Australian family court. Therefore, it requires no further proof of its authenticity and due
execution. In contrary to the respondent’s claims, before a foreign judgment is given
presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and admitted in
evidence. Fortunately for respondent, the divorce decree was submitted in evidence and was
only held by the petitioner as it was not registered with the local civil registry of Cabanatuan.
Hence, it was submitted as evidence and was held admissible.
RESPONDENTS LEGAL CAPACITY TO REMARRY
1. Petitioner claims that their marriage was void ab intio due to the fact that there insufficient
proof of the divorce hence, respondent was not legally capacitated to marry her. Respondent
argues that the Australian divorce decree was adequately established his legal capacity to
marry.
2. Respondent though, failed to distinguish what kind of divorce he has obtained. What he has
presented was only a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree -- a conditional or provisional
judgment of divorce. Although an absolute divorce may follow, some foreign statutes and
practices, still restrict remarriage. Under some other jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited
by statute. The court may allow a remarriage only after proof of good behavior.
3. Australian divorce decree provides that: A party to a marriage who marries again before this
decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy. It
did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to his national law.
4. Significance of the Certificate of Legal Capacity
- Petitioner argues that the certificate of legal capacity required by Article 21 of the Family Code
was not submitted together with the application for a marriage license. According to her, its
absence is proof that respondent did not have legal capacity to remarry.
- It is the duty of the national law of the party concerned to determine the legal capacity to
marry. However, there was no evidence that points that the respondent, an Australian citizen,
was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. This court agrees with the petitioner that
the trial court erred in the decision as there was no sufficient evidence provided to prove
respondents legal capacity to marry.
5. The court however, cannot grant the petitioner’s prayer to declare her marriage null and void
on the ground of bigamy. As it may turn out that the Australian law might actually allow the
petitioner the capacity to marry after the time of the divorce decree has lapsed.
6. The best was the court decided was to remand the case to the trial court to receive evidence
it here is such to prove capacity to marry petitioner and if there is not the marriage will be
declared null and void on the ground of bigamy.
Disposition:
The case was REMANDED to the court a quo.

Recio Garcia V Recio (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recio Garcia V Recio (Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recio Garcia V Recio (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

You might also like