[G.R. No. 138322.

October 2, 2001] The Courts Ruling

GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, vs. First Issue:
REDERICK A. RECIO, respondent. Mere presentation of the divorce decree of respondents marriage to Samson is insufficient.
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
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 At the outset, we lay the following basic legal principles as the take-off points for our discussion.
not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. [21]
decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad,
evidence.
because of Articles 15[22] and 17[23] of the Civil Code.[24]
The Facts In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 [25] of the Family Code allows
Rederick A. Recio (Recio), a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by
Malabon, Rizal, on March 1, 1987. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. On May the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.[26]
18, 1989, a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the
family court. Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws. [27]
On June 26, 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen, as shown by a Certificate of Australian
Citizenship issued by the Australian government. A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof are concerned, can
Petitioner Grace Garcia, Filipino and Recio were married on January 12, 1994 in Our Lady of be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
Perpetual Help Church in Cabanatuan City. [7] In their application for a marriage license, recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. Therefore,
respondent was declared as single and Filipino.[8] 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.[29] Presentation solely
Starting October 22, 1995, Recio and Garcia lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of of the divorce decree is insufficient.
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. [9]
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be
On March 3, 1998, Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground
proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a
of bigamy -- respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her on
copy thereof attested[33] by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept
January 12, 1994. She claimed that she learned of respondents marriage to Editha Samson only in
in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
November, 1997.
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in
In his Answer, respondent averred that, as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution.[11] He contended that his first marriage to an The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one
Australian citizen had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in 1989; issued by an Australian family court. However, appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the
[12]
thus, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. aforementioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated.
On July 7, 1998 -- or about five years after the couples wedding and while the suit for the Fortunately for respondents cause, when the divorce decree of May 18, 1989 was submitted in
declaration of nullity was pending -- respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not
family court in Sydney, Australia because the marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down. [13] been registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City. The trial court ruled that it was
Respondent prayed in his Answer that the Complaint be dismissed on the ground that it stated no admissible, subject to petitioners qualification. Hence, it was admitted in evidence and accorded
cause of action. weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioners failure to object properly rendered the divorce decree
admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Australia.
Ruling of the Trial Court Compliance with the articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code is not necessary; respondent was
declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992.
and recognized in the Philippines. Naturalization is the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the political and civil rights
It deemed the marriage ended, but not on the basis of any defect in an essential element of the belonging to a citizen. Naturalized citizens, freed from the protective cloak of their former states, don
marriage; that is, respondents alleged lack of legal capacity to remarry. Rather, it based its the attires of their adoptive countries. By becoming an Australian, respondent severed his allegiance
Decision on the divorce decree obtained by respondent. The Australian divorce had ended the to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal laws.
marriage; thus, there was no more marital union to nullify or annul.
The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in
Issues the prosecution or defense of an action. Since the divorce was a defense raised by Recio, the burden
(1) whether the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven of proving the pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him.
(2) whether respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.
[43]
Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those
matters that judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.
Second Issue:
The Australian divorce decree, although validly admitted in evidence, DID NOT adequately
establish Recios legal capacity to marry under Australian law. He was therefore not legally
capacitated to marry Garcia in 1994; their marriage was void ab initio.

In its strict legal sense, divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising
after marriage. But divorces are of different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a
vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the
marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. There is no showing in the
case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent.

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.
Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes and
practices, still restrict remarriage. Under some other jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited by
statute; thus, the guilty party in a divorce which was granted on the ground of adultery may be
prohibited from marrying again. The court may allow a remarriage only after proof of good behavior.
[47]

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.[48]

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, we find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that the
Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondents capacity to remarry despite the paucity of
evidence on this matter.

Significance of the Certificate of Legal Capacity

The legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party
concerned. 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.[50]
There is absolutely no evidence that proves respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner.

We cannot conclude that Recio, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally
capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994. The court a quo erred in finding that the divorce
decree ipso facto 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 at the very
least, to prove his legal capacity to contract the second marriage.

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. Failing in that, then the court a quo may declare a nullity of the
parties marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being already in evidence two existing marriage
certificates, which were both obtained in the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro Manila dated March
1, 1987 and the other, in Cabanatuan City dated January 12, 1994.
 WHEREFORE, in 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.

SO ORDERED.