Garcia vs.

Recio

G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001

Facts:

Article 26; The respondent, Rederick Recio, a Filipino was married to Editha Samson, an
Australian citizen, in Rizal in 1987. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. In 1989,
the Australian family court issued a decree of divorce supposedly dissolving the marriage. In
1992, respondent acquired Australian citizenship. In 1994, he married Grace Garcia, a Filipina,
herein petitioner, inCabanatuan City. In their application for marriage license, respondent was
declared as “single” and “Filipino.” Since October 1995, they lived separately, and in 1996 while
in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided. In 1998, petitioner filed Complaint for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy, claiming that she learned of the respondent’s
former marriage only in November. On the other hand, respondent claims that he told petitioner
of his prior marriage in 1993, before they were married. Respondent also contended that his first
marriage was dissolved by a divorce a decree obtained in Australia in 1989 and hence, he was
legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. The trial court declared that the first marriage
was dissolved on the ground of the divorce issued in Australia as valid and recognized in
the Philippines. Hence, this petition was forwarded before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to marry Grace Garcia.

Ruling:

In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code
allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is “validly obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.” A divorce obtained abroad by
two aliens, may be recognized in thePhilippines, provided it is consistent with their respective
laws. Therefore, before our courts can recognize a foreign divorce, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. In this
case, the divorce decree between the respondent and

Samson appears to be authentic, issued by an Australian family court. Although, appearance is

not sufficient, and compliance with the rules on evidence regarding alleged foreign laws must be
demonstrated, the decree was admitted on account of petitioner’s failure to object properly
because he objected to the fact that it was not registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan
City, not to its admissibility. Respondent claims that the Australian divorce decree, which was
validly admitted as evidence, adequately established his legal capacity to marry under Australian
law. Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes, still
restrict remarriage. Respondent also failed to produce sufficient evidence showing the foreign
law governing his status. Together with other evidences submitted, they don’t absolutely
establish his legal capacity to remarry.