SYLLABUS: IV. Marriage , IV. Substantive Issues (Art.

26 Family Code) case#2

GARCIA VS RECIO
G.R. No. 138322
October 2, 2001

GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner,

REDERICK A. RECIO, respondents.

Penned by Judge Feliciano V. Buenaventura

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.
However, 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 (Rederick Recio), 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 (Garcia & Recio) 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…. (Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven
as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy
thereof attested3 by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in
the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.) .

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 divorce 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remand- v. to send back. An appeals court may remand a case to the trial court for further action if it
reverses the judgment of the lower court, or after a preliminary hearing a judge may remand into custody a
person accused of a crime if the judge finds that a there is reason to hold the accused for trial.

Ipso facto- Latin meaning By the fact itself something so obvious on its face that it doesn’t need
explanation, for example, that a certifiably insane individual does not have the capacity to enter into a
binding legal contract by himself. 2. This phrase is frequently employed to convey the idea that something
which has been done contrary to law is void.

a quo- A term used, with the correlative ad quern, (to which,) in expressing the computation of time, and
also of distance in space. Thus, dies a quo, the day from which, and dies ad quern, the day to which, a
period of time is computed. So, terminus a quo, the point or limit from which, and terminus ad quern, the
point or limit to which, a distance or passage in space is reckoned. Example, in the computation of time,
the day a quo is not to be counted, but the day ad quem is always included. A court a quo, the court from
which an appeal has been taken; a judge a quo is a judge of a court below.