Case Digest (G.R. No. 138322)
Facts:
Grace J. Garcia, a.k.a. Grace J. Garcia-Recio v. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 02, 2001, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Grace J. Garcia (a Filipina) married respondent Rederick A. Recio (a Filipino by birth who later became an Australian citizen) on January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City. Respondent had previously married Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, on March 1, 1987 in Malabon, and the couple later lived in Australia. A family court in Australia issued a decree of divorce dated May 18, 1989; respondent later acquired Australian citizenship on June 26, 1992.
Petitioner and respondent separated on October 22, 1995. While still in Australia the parties executed Statutory Declarations effecting a division of conjugal assets dated May 16, 1996. On March 3, 1998 petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28, Cabanatuan City (Civil Case No. 3026‑AF), alleging bigamy on the ground that respondent's previous marriage to Editha Samson was still subsisting when he married petitioner.
In his Answer respondent alleged that he had disclosed his prior marriage to petitioner as early as 1993 and that his first marriage had been validly dissolved by an Australian divorce decree; while the nullity suit was pending respondent secured what the records label a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney on July 7, 1998. The RTC admitted documentary evidence, including Australian documents offered by respondent, and on January 7, 1999 rendered a decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent dissolved on the ground of the recognized Australian divorce. The RTC denied reconsideration in an Order dated March 24, 1999.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in this Court seeking nullification of the RTC Decision and Order. The petition r...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson adequately proven and therefore recognizable in the Philippines?
- Was respondent proven to have the legal capacity to marry petitioner in Ja...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)