Scribd
Upload
49 views2 pages

Garcia Vs Recio 2001

1) Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was first married to Editha Samson in the Philippines in 1987. He obtained a divorce decree from an Australian family court in 1989. 2) Recio became an Australian citizen in 1992. He then married the petitioner, a Filipina, in 1994 in the Philippines, declaring himself as single. 3) The petitioner filed for annulment in 1998, claiming the marriage was bigamous as Recio's first marriage was still valid. Recio argued the Australian divorce terminated his first marriage.

Uploaded by

Rajan Numbanal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49 views2 pages

Garcia Vs Recio 2001

1) Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was first married to Editha Samson in the Philippines in 1987. He obtained a divorce decree from an Australian family court in 1989. 2) Recio became an Australian citizen in 1992. He then married the petitioner, a Filipina, in 1994 in the Philippines, declaring himself as single. 3) The petitioner filed for annulment in 1998, claiming the marriage was bigamous as Recio's first marriage was still valid. Recio argued the Australian divorce terminated his first marriage.

Uploaded by

Rajan Numbanal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GARCIA VS RECIO 2001

FACTS: (Art3,judicial notice;Art36 prejudicial question;Art26FC,divorce abroad)


Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on March
1, 1987. On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce, was issued by an Australian family court.
On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen, as shown by a Certificate of Australian
Citizenship issued by the Australian government. Petitioner, a Filipina, and respondent were married on
January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City. In their application for a marriage license, respondent was declared as
single and Filipino.
Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their
marriage. While the two were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in
accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.
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. She claimed that she learned
of respondents marriage to Editha Samson only in November, 1997
On July 7, 1998 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.
Respondent prayed in his Answer that the Complaint be dismissed on the ground that it stated no cause of
action.
The trial court declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and
recognized in the Philippines. It deemed the marriage ended, but not on the basis of any defect in an essential
element of the marriage; that is, respondents alleged lack of legal capacity to remarry. Rather, it based its
Decision on the divorce decree obtained by respondent. The Australian divorce had ended the marriage; thus,
there was no more marital union to nullify or annul.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE DIVORCE DECREE OBTAINED IN AUSTRALIA BY THE RESPONDENT TERMINATED HIS FIRST MARRIAGE
TO EDITHA SAMSON.
WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS PROVEN TO BE LEGALLY CAPACITATED TO MARRY PETITIONER.
PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE DIVORCE DECREE, MAY BE GIVEN RECOGNITION IN THIS JURISDICTION ONLY UPON
PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF (1) the foreign law allowing absolute divorce and (2) the alleged divorce decree
itself.
THE FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO PRESENT A CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO MARRY CONSTITUTES ABSENCE
OF A SUBSTANTIAL REQUISITE VOIDING THE PETITIONERS MARRIAGE TO THE RESPONDENT. In compliance with
articles (11, 13 and 52) and 21 of the Family Code.
HELD:
Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary; respondent was no longer
bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. By becoming an Australian,
respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal
laws. The certificate mentioned in Article 21 of the Family Code would have been sufficient to establish the legal
capacity of respondent, had he duly presented it in court. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima
facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license. We cannot
conclude that respondent, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994 that the divorce clothed
respondent with the legal capacity to remarry without requiring him to adduce sufficient evidence to show the
Australian personal law governing his status; or to prove his legal capacity to contract the second marriage.
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 of the divorce decree is
insufficient.
Respondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree, a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce. It
is in effect the same as a separation from bed and board, although an absolute divorce may follow after the lapse
of the prescribed period during which no reconciliation is effected.
On its face, the herein 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.

Neither can we grant petitioners prayer to declare her marriage to respondent null and void on the ground of
bigamy. After all, it may turn out that under Australian law, he was really capacitated to marry petitioner as a
direct result of the divorce decree. Hence, we believe that the most judicious course is to remand this case to the
trial court to receive evidence, if any, which show petitioners legal capacity to marry petitioner.

You might also like