Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Garcia Vs Receio, G.R No. 138322
Garcia Vs Receio, G.R No. 138322
138322
Facts:
Roderick Recio, a filipino citizen is married to Editha Samson (an Australian citizen) in Malabon
Rizal. On March 18, 1989, a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage was issued by the
Australian Family Court. On June 26, 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen issued by the
Australian government.
On January 12, 1994, the petitioner and the respondent got married in Our Lady of Perpetual
Help church in Cabanutan City. On October 22, 1995, the petitioner and respondent lived
separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. On March 3, 1998, the petitioner
filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court on the ground of bigamy. The
respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married Garcia. She claimed
that she learned of respondents marriage to Editha Samson only in November 1997. The
respondent contended that his prior marriage had been validly dissolved by a decree of divorce
obtained in Australia. Thus, he is legally capacitated to marry the petitioner. Respondent prayed
in his answer that the complained be dismissed on the ground that is stated no cause of action.
The Office of the Solicitor General agreed with respondent. The court marked and admitted the
documentary evidence of both parties. After they submitted their respective memoranda, the
case was submitted for resolution.
The trial court rendered the decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent
dissolved and both parties can now remarry.
Issue:
WON, the divorce obtained by respondent in Australia ipso facto capacitated him to remarry.
Held:
The SC remanded the case to the trial court to receive evidence. Based ok the records, the court
cannot conclude that respondent who was then naturalized Australian citizen was legally
capacitated to marry the petitioner. Neither can the court grant petitioner’s prayer to declare her
marriage 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 result of the divorce decree. The petition is
partly meritorious.
Republic of the Philippines VS Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R No. 154380 (October 5,
2005)
Facts:
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church
of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage was blessed with a son and a
daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido.
In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years
later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen.
Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and
then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her child by him currently live at 5566
A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel, California.
Cipriano thereafter 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.
Issue:
WON, the allegations of the respondent was proven as a fact according to the rules of evidence.
Held:
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign
law allowing it. Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot take judicial
notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged and proved.
Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to
remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence
sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another marriage.
However, in the present petition there is no sufficient evidence submitted and on
record, we are unable to declare, based on respondent’s bare allegations that his wife,
who was naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had
remarried an American, that respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration
could only be made properly upon respondent’s submission of the aforecited evidence in his
favor.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition by the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED.
The assailed Decision dated May 15, 2002, and Resolution dated July 4, 2002, of the
Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, are hereby SET ASIDE.