GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, vs. REDERICK A.

RECIO, respondent.
G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Procedural History
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided
such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, the divorce
decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must
be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments; hence,
like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be
alleged and proven according to our law on evidence.
Facts:
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 respondents 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.
Answer:
No, the respondent did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to
his national law.
Reasoning

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 petitioners
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 dont absolutely establish his
legal capacity to remarry.
Holding:
The interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, we REMAND the case to the
court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondents
legal capacity to marry petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the parties marriage
void on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed. No costs.