GARCIA vs. RECIO G.R. No. 138322.

October 2, 2001
GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, VS. RODERICK A. RECIO,
respondent
October 2, 2001

FACTS:
The respondent, 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, in Cabanatuan 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 Autralia, 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 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.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven.
2. Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to marry Grace Garcia.

RULING:
The Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. 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 the Philippines,
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. However, there are two types of
divorce, absolute divorce terminating the marriage and limited divorce merely suspending the marriage. In
this case, it is not known which type of divorce the respondent procured.
Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes, still restrict
remarriage. Under the Australian divorce decree “a party to a marriage who marries again before this
decree becomes absolute commits the offense of bigamy”. This shows that the divorce obtained by the
respondent might have been restricted. 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 according to the alleged foreign law.
Case remanded to the court a quo. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent can not be
declared null and void based on lack of evidence conclusively showing the respondent’s legal capacity to
marry petitioner. With the lack of such evidence, the court a quo may declare nullity of the parties’
marriage based on two existing marriage certificates.
Garcia v. Recio
G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001

FACTS:

Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in Malabon,
Rizal. They lived as husband and wife in Australia. However, an Australian family court issued
purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of Rederick and Editha.

Recio married Grace J. Garcia at Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Since
October 22, 1995, the couple lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage.
While they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided in accordance with their
Statutory Declarations secured in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.

Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy on March 3,
1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997 of Rederick’s marriage with Editha Samson.

ISSUE:

Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Recio is admissible as evidence to prove his legal
capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

RULING:

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A marriage
between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Articles
15 and 17 of the Civil Code. 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.[26] A divorce obtained
abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines,provided it is
consistent with the irrespective nation allows.

A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof are concerned, can be
made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.Therefore,
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. Presentation solely
ofthe divorce decree is insufficient.

Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, 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
attested 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.

The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued was valid and
recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized Australian. However, there is
absolutely no evidence that proves respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner though the former
presented a divorce decree. The said decree, being a foreign document was inadmissible to court as
evidence primarily because it was not authenticated by the consul/embassy of the country where it
will be used.

Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City to
receive or trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondent’s legal capacityto marry
petitionerand thus free him on the groundof bigamy.
Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera, et al.

G.R No. 80116, June 30, 1989

Regalado, J.:
This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the
RTC.

FACTS:

Imelda Pilapil was married to Erich Geiling in Germany and their marriage bore one
child. Geiling eventually filed for divorce in Germany stating the causes of failure of the
marriage. Petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of
property before the RTC Manila. After the promulgation of the divorce decree, Geiling
filed two consecutive complaints of adultery against Pilapil for having elationships with
Chia and Chua. She asked the court to have her arraignment deferred but to no avail, as
well as the motion to quash due to lack of jurisdiction. A temporary restraining order
was eventually issued to him from implementing said order.

ISSUE:

WON a criminal case for adultery which took place after a divorce is barred by the
previously acquired decree of divorce.

HELD:

The Court ruled on the affirmative side. This was based on two concepts. First, that the
Civil Code of the Philippines recognized a divorce acquired by an alien spouse in another
country provided that it is valid based on his national law. The second concept is that
adultery requires an offended spouse, which means tgat marital status is relevant. In the
case at bar, Geiling’s divorce decree acquired in Germany is recognized in the
Philippines freeing him and Pilapil from their marital bond and responsibility. Since
they are validly divorced, Geiling cannot be considered an offended spouse to file an
adultery case against Pilapil who had then the right and freedom to enter into another
relationships.
FACTS:
In 1981, Cipriano Orbecido and Lady Myro Villanueva got married in Ozamis City and
had two children. Wife went to US to work and later became a US citizen. Thereafter,
Orbecido learned from his son that his wife obtained divorce thereat and married to
another man. Orbecido filed a petition with the Trial Court for ‘Authority to Remarry’
under the Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, Court granted his petition. The Republic,
herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General sought for reconsideration
but was denied. Hence, this petition on review for certiorari was filed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 (2).

RULING:
Yes. Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the
time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them
becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino
spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the
time of the solemnization of the marriage.

However, Orbecido is barred from remarrying because he did not present competent
evidence to establish the alleged divorce decree obtained by his wife as a fact according
to the rules on evidence. Hence, petition of the Republic was granted.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, Respondent.
G.R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005
QUISUMBING, J.:
Facts:
Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of
Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City, on May 24,

1981. They were blessed with

a with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V.
Orbecido.
Lady Myros left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer in 1986. After
few years, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American
citizen.

Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree sometime in
2000 and then married a certain Innocent Stanley and lived in California.

He then filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph
2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the
petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied. Orbecido filed
a petition for review of certiorari on the Decision of the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.
Held:
Yes. The Court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family
Code be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse
who had acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to remarry under Philippine law.

The article should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of
the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on,one of them became
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtained a divorce decree.

The instant case was one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties
were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as an American citizen
and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed, she
remarried an American citizen while residing in the US. The Filipino spouse should
likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the
solemnization of the marriage.

However, since Orbecido was not able to prove as fact his wife’s naturalization, he was
still barred from remarrying.
Bayot vs. CA
G.R. No. 155635 November 7, 2008

FACTS:
Rebecca Macapugay Bayot was an American citizen and born in Agoa, Guam, USA.
She married Vicente Bayot at Greenhills, Mandaluyong on April 20, 1979. On November
27,1982, Rebecca gave birth to a daughter named Alix at San Francisco, California.
However, as the marriage turned sour, Rebecca initiated a divorce on 1996 in
Dominican Republic. The latter ordered the dissolution of marriage and remarriage after
competing the legal requirements. However, there must be a joint custody and
guardianship to Alix, and the conjugal property, particularly the real properties located
only in Manila that they acquired during their marriage be settled.

However, Rebecca stated under oath on May 28, 1996 that she is an American citizen
and she is carrying a child not of Vicente. Rebecca again filed another petition in Manila
on March 2001 for absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of dissolution of
partnership gain, monthly support for their daughter and that Vicente is psychological
incapacitated.

Vicente averred and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of cause and action and filed a
case of adultery and perjury against Rebecca. Rebecca, on the contrary, charged
Vicente with bigamy and concubinage.

On the other note, Rebecca became a recognized Filipino citizen on 2000.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce is valid?

HELD:
1) No serious dispute that at the time of divorce to Vicente, Rebecca was an American
citizen and still remains to be one. Evidences: a) she was born in USA and jus soli is
followed in American territory in granting American citizenship; b) she was and may still
be an American passport holder; c) in marriage certificate, birth certificate of Alix and
divorce decree in Dominican Republic, it was declared that she is an American

2) VALID. Rebecca was bound by the national laws of USA where divorce was valid.
Their property relations were also properly adjudicated through their Agreement on
1996. Foreign divorce can be recognized in the Philippines provided that the divorce
decree is fact and valid under the national law of the alien spouse. The reckoning point
is the citizenship of parties at the time the divorce was obtained and not the citizenship
of the parties at the time of the celebration of marriage.
CORPUZ VS. STO. TOMAS AND SOLICITOR-GENERAL
MARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

GERBERT R. CORPUZ vs. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and The SOLICITOR
GENERAL
G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010

Facts: Petitioner (Gerbert Corpuz) is a former Filipino citizen who became a

Canadian citizen through naturalization. Subsequently, the petitioner married
the respondent (Daisylyn Sto. Tomas), a Filipina, in Pasig City. After the wedding,
petitioner went back to Canada due to work commitments; however, when he
came back he was shocked to discover that the respondent is having an affair
with another man. Thus, petitioner went back to Canada and filed a petition for
divorce. The Superior Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted the
petitioner’s petition for divorce. The divorce decree took effect a month later,
January 8, 2006.
Two years later, the petitioner has already moved on and found another woman
that he wants to marry. Thus, for his love to his fiancée; the petitioner went to
the Pasig Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his
and the respondent’s marriage certificate. Despite the registration of the divorce
decree, an official of the National Statistic’s Office (NSO) informed the petitioner
that the marriage between him and the respondent still subsists under the
Philippine Law and to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be
judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court, pursuant to NSO Circular
No. 4, Series of 1982.

Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign

divorce and/or declaration of marriage dissolved with the RTC. The RTC denied
his petition, hence this recourse by the petitioner.
Issue: Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code
extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the
recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
Ruling: No.
Even though the trial court is correct in its conclusion that the alien spouse can
claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the
substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse due to the given
the rationale and intent behind the enactment, and as such the second paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code limits its applicability for the benefit of the
Filipino spouse.
However, we qualify the above conclusion made by the trial court because in our
jurisdiction, the foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that
clothes the party with legal interest to petitions for its recognition. Even though,
the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no rights in favor
of aliens- with the complementary statement that his conclusion is not a
sufficient basis to dismiss the petition filed by Corpuz before the RTC. the
unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens
does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the
recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after
its authenticity and conformity with the alien’s national law have been duly
proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of
right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
which provides for the effect of foreign judgments. This Section states:

SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.—The effect of a judgment or

final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the
judgment or final order is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or
final order is conclusive upon the title of the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final
order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want
of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of
law or fact.

To our mind, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is
sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before
our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment. In a divorce situation, we
have declared, no less, that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his or
her national law.
The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the
acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments
and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, “no sovereign is bound to give
effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another
country.” This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be
proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable
national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.
The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose
or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral
aspect of his claim or defense.
In Gerbert’s case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of
the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official
acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court comes
into play. This Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2)
copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies
of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these 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.

The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the divorce
decree, as well as the required certificates proving its authenticity, but failed to
include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce. Under this situation, we can, at
this point, simply dismiss the petition for insufficiency of supporting evidence,
unless we deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the RTC to determine
whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law.

We deem it more appropriate to take this latter course of action, given the Article
26 interests that will be served and the Filipina wife’s (Daisylyn’s) obvious
conformity with the petition. A remand, at the same time, will allow other
interested parties to oppose the foreign judgment and overcome a petitioner’s
presumptive evidence of a right by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice to
a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every
precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws before a
recognition is made, as the foreign judgment, once recognized, shall have the
effect of res judicata between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court.
In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of
reciprocal recognition of foreign judgments between nations, the res judicata
effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves as the deeper basis for
extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its
terms. This same effect, as discussed above, will not obtain for the Filipino
spouse were it not for the substantive rule that the second paragraph of Article
26 of the Family Code provides.
Considerations beyond the recognition of the foreign divorce decree.