Title
Supreme Court
Garcia vs. Recio
Case
G.R. No. 138322
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2001
Filipino-Australian Rederick Recio's marriage to Grace Garcia contested due to unproven Australian divorce from first wife, raising issues of legal capacity and foreign divorce recognition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138322)

Key Dates

– March 1, 1987: First marriage of respondent to Editha D. Samson in Malabon, Rizal.
– May 18, 1989: Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage issued by an Australian family court.
– June 26, 1992: Respondent’s naturalization as an Australian citizen.
– January 12, 1994: Marriage of petitioner and respondent in Cabanatuan City.
– October 22, 1995: Parties began living separately.
– March 3, 1998: Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity on grounds of bigamy.
– July 7, 1998: Respondent obtained a subsequent Australian Decree Nisi converting the divorce into an absolute decree.
– January 7, 1999: RTC of Cabanatuan City, Branch 28, rendered a decision declaring the 1994 marriage dissolved.
– March 24, 1999: RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (Articles 15 and 17 on personal status and prohibitive laws).
– Civil Code provisions binding Filipino citizens on personal status even abroad.
– Family Code of the Philippines, especially:
• Article 4 (irregularities in marriage formalities)
• Article 11 and Article 13 (requirements for marriage license when previously married)
• Article 21 (certificate of legal capacity to marry)
• Article 26 (recognition of foreign marriages and divorces in mixed marriages)
• Article 35 et seq. (prohibited marriages)
• Article 52 (registration of judgments affecting marriage status).
– Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sections 19, 24 and 25 (proof of foreign public documents).
– Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari).

Factual Background

Respondent married Editha Samson, an Australian, in 1987 and resided with her in Australia. He secured a Decree Nisi of divorce in 1989 and became an Australian citizen in 1992. In 1994, he married petitioner in the Philippines, falsely declaring himself single and Filipino. The parties separated in 1995, divided conjugal assets in Australia in 1996, and petitioner learned of the prior marriage only in late 1997. She filed for nullity in March 1998, alleging bigamy. Respondent claimed his first marriage was dissolved validly under Australian law, enabling him to marry petitioner. While the case was pending, he obtained an absolute divorce decree in Australia in July 1998. The RTC recognized the 1989 Australian divorce as valid, declared the 1994 marriage dissolved, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Issues for Resolution

  1. Whether the 1989 Australian divorce decree was properly proven and thus recognized in the Philippines.
  2. Whether respondent was legally capacitated to remarry petitioner under his national law.

Legal Principles on Recognition of Foreign Divorce

– Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; a divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino cannot dissolve the marriage between two Filipinos (Civil Code Articles 15, 17).
– In mixed marriages, a divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse may be recognized and capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry (Family Code Article 26).
– Foreign judgments, including divorce decrees, are not subject to judicial notice; both the decree itself and the foreign law permitting it must be alleged and proven under the Rules of Court on evidence.
– A foreign public document is proven by an official publication or by attested copies accompanied by the appropriate diplomatic or consular certification.

Court’s Analysis – Proving the Divorce

– The respondent submitted the 1989 Australian Decree Nisi, which the RTC admitted without objection to its authenticity. Although the petitioner argued non-registration under Family Code Articles 11, 13 and 52, such formal registration is not required once the decree is admissible as a foreign public document.
– Upon naturalization in 1992, respondent ceased to be bound by Philippine personal laws; his marital capacity is governed by Australian law.
– The burden to prove Australian law remains on respondent; Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign statutes and practices.

Court’s Analysis – Legal Capacity to Remarry

– Divorce

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.