Garcia V Recio 365 SCRA 437
Garcia V Recio 365 SCRA 437
GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately
vs. without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. While the two were still
REDERICK A. RECIO, respondents. in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in
accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia. 9
PANGANIBAN, J.:
On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our Marriage10 in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy – respondent
jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her on
the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal January 12, 1994. She claimed that she learned of respondent's marriage
law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our to Editha Samson only in November, 1997.
courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment; hence,
like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the In his Answer, respondent averred that, as far back as 1993, he had
alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence. revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent
dissolution.11 He contended that his first marriage to an Australian citizen
The Case had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australian in
1989;12 thus, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. 1âwphi1.nêt
Petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration: The Petition is partly meritorious.
The trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorce decree Proving the Divorce Between Respondent and Editha Samson
obtained in Australia by the respondent ipso facto terminated his
first marriage to Editha Samson thereby capacitating him to Petitioner assails the trial court's recognition of the divorce between
contract a second marriage with the petitioner. respondent and Editha Samson. Citing Adong v. Cheong Seng
Gee,20 petitioner argues that the divorce decree, like any other foreign
"2 judgment, may be given recognition in this jurisdiction only upon proof of
the existence of (1) the foreign law allowing absolute divorce and (2) the
The failure of the respondent, who is now a naturalized alleged divorce decree itself. She adds that respondent miserably failed
Australian, to present a certificate of legal capacity to marry to establish these elements.
constitutes absence of a substantial requisite voiding the
petitioner' marriage to the respondent. Petitioner adds that, based on the first paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code, marriages solemnized abroad are governed by the law of
"3 the place where they were celebrated (the lex loci celebrationist). In
effect, the Code requires the presentation of the foreign law to show the
conformity of the marriage in question to the legal requirements of the
The trial court seriously erred in the application of Art. 26 of the
place where the marriage was performed.
Family Code in this case.
At the outset, we lay the following basic legal principles as the take-off
"4
points for our discussion. Philippine law does not provide for absolute
divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it.21 A marriage between two
The trial court patently and grievously erred in disregarding Arts. Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad,
11, 13, 21, 35, 40, 52 and 53 of the Family Code as the because of Articles 1522 and 1723 of the Civil Code.24 In mixed marriages
applicable provisions in this case. involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 2625 of the Family Code allows
the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is
"5 "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, Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Australian divorce decree
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their is a public document – a written official act of an Australian family court.
respective national laws.27 Therefore, it requires no further proof of its authenticity and due
execution.
A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and
proof are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that Respondent is getting ahead of himself. Before a foreign judgment is
"aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be
Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national presented and admitted in evidence. 30 A divorce obtained abroad is
law."28 Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a
our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and judgment is the judgment itself.31 The decree purports to be a written act
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.29 Presentation or record of an act of an officially body or tribunal of a foreign country. 32
solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or
Divorce as a Question of Fact 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 33 by the
Petitioner insists that before a divorce decree can be admitted in officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in
evidence, it must first comply with the registration requirements under the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate
Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code. These articles read as follows: issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine
foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept
"ART. 11. Where a marriage license is required, each of the and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. 34
contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for
such license with the proper local civil registrar which shall The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to
specify the following: be an authentic one issued by an Australian family court. 35 However,
appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the aforemetioned rules on
x x x x x x x x x evidence must be demonstrated.
"(5) If previously married, how, when and where the previous Fortunately for respondent's cause, when the divorce decree of May 18,
marriage was dissolved or annulled; 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its
admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the
Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City.36 The trial court ruled that it was
x x x x x x x x x
admissible, subject to petitioner's qualification.37Hence, it was admitted in
evidence and accorded weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioner's failure to
"ART. 13. In case either of the contracting parties has been object properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of
previously married, the applicant shall be required to furnish, the Family Court of Sydney, Australia. 38
instead of the birth of baptismal certificate required in the last
preceding article, the death certificate of the deceased spouse or
Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family Code is
the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his or
not necessary; respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal
her previous marriage. x x x.
laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. 39 Naturalization is
the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the political and
"ART. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the civil rights belonging to a citizen.40 Naturalized citizens, freed from the
marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the protective cloak of their former states, don the attires of their adoptive
spouses, and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes countries. By becoming an Australian, respondent severed his allegiance
shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of
property; otherwise, the same shall not affect their persons."
to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine Respondent's contention is untenable. In its strict legal
personal laws. 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
Burden of Proving Australian Law 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
Respondent contends that the burden to prove Australian divorce law the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. 45 There is no
falls upon petitioner, because she is the party challenging the validity of a showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by
foreign judgment. He contends that petitioner was satisfied with the respondent.
original of the divorce decree and was cognizant of the marital laws of
Australia, because she had lived and worked in that country for quite a Respondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree – a
long time. Besides, the Australian divorce law is allegedly known by conditional or provisional judgment of divorce. It is in effect the same as a
Philippine courts: thus, judges may take judicial notice of foreign laws in separation from bed and board, although an absolute divorce may follow
the exercise of sound discretion. after the lapse of the prescribed period during which no reconciliation is
effected.46
We are not persuaded. The burden of proof lies with "the party who
alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some
defense of an action."41 In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving foreign statutes and practices, still restrict remarriage. Under some other
the material allegations of the complaint when those are denied by the jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited by statute; thus, the guilty party in
answer; and defendants have the burden of proving the material a divorce which was granted on the ground of adultery may be prohibited
allegations in their answer when they introduce new matters. 42 Since the from remarrying again. The court may allow a remarriage only after proof
divorce was a defense raised by respondent, the burden of proving the of good behavior.47
pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him.
On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial that reads:
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 "1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree
are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function. 44 The power of becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the
judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and every reasonable offence of bigamy."48
doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative.
This quotation bolsters our contention that the divorce obtained by
Second Issue: respondent may have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his
legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Hence, we find no
Respondent's Legal Capacity to Remarry basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that the
Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent's capacity to remarry
Petitioner contends that, in view of the insufficient proof of the divorce, despite the paucity of evidence on this matter.
respondent was legally incapacitated to marry her in 1994.
We also reject the claim of respondent that the divorce decree raises a
Hence, she concludes that their marriage was void ab initio. disputable presumption or presumptive evidence as to his civil status
based on Section 48, Rule 3949 of the Rules of Court, for the simple
reason that no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the
Respondent replies that the Australian divorce decree, which was validly
divorce decree obtained under Australian laws.
admitted in evidence, adequately established his legal capacity to marry
under Australian law.
Significance of the Certificate of Legal Capacity
Petitioner argues that the certificate of legal capacity required by Article Neither can we grant petitioner's prayer to declare her marriage to
21 of the Family Code was not submitted together with the application for respondent null and void on the ground of bigamy. After all, it may turn
a marriage license. According to her, its absence is proof that respondent out that under Australian law, he was really capacitated to marry
did not have legal capacity to remarry. 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
We clarify. To repeat, the legal capacity to contract marriage is receive evidence, if any, which show petitioner's legal capacity to marry
determined by the national law of the party concerned. The certificate petitioner. Failing in that, then the court a quo may declare a nullity of the
mentioned in Article 21 of the Family Code would have been sufficient to parties' marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being already in
establish the legal capacity of respondent, had he duly presented it in evidence two existing marriage certificates, which were both obtained in
court. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro Manila dated March 1, 1987 and
evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a the other, in Cabanatuan City dated January 12, 1994.
marriage license.50
WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial
As it is, however, there is absolutely no evidence that proves justice, we REMAND the case to the court a quofor the purpose of
respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner. A review of the records receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent's legal capacity
before this Court shows that only the following exhibits were presented to marry petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the parties' marriage
before the lower court: (1) for petitioner: (a) Exhibit "A" – Complaint; 51 (b) void on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed. No costs.
Exhibit "B" – Certificate of Marriage Between Rederick A. Recto (Filipino-
Australian) and Grace J. Garcia (Filipino) on January 12, 1994 in SO ORDERED.
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija;52 (c) Exhibit "C" – Certificate of Marriage
Between Rederick A. Recio (Filipino) and Editha D. Samson (Australian) Melo, Puno, Vitug, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
on March 1, 1987 in Malabon, Metro Manila;53 (d) Exhibit "D" – Office of
the City Registrar of Cabanatuan City Certification that no information of Footnotes
annulment between Rederick A. Recto and Editha D. Samson was in its
records;54 and (e) Exhibit "E" – Certificate of Australian Citizenship of 1
Penned by Judge Feliciano V. Buenaventura; rollo, pp. 7-9.
Rederick A. Recto;55 (2) for respondent: (Exhibit "1" – Amended
Answer;56 (b) Exhibit "S" – Family Law Act 1975 Decree Nisi of
Dissolution of Marriage in the Family Court of Australia; 57 (c) Exhibit "3" –
2
Rollo, p. 10.
Certificate of Australian Citizenship of Rederick A. Recto; 58 (d) Exhibit "4"
– Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage in the Family Court of Australia
3
Ibid, p. 9.
Certificate;59 and Exhibit "5" – Statutory Declaration of the Legal
Separation Between Rederick A. Recto and Grace J. Garcia Recio since 4
Rollo, p. 37.
October 22, 1995.60
5
Ibid., p. 47.
Based on the above records, we cannot conclude that respondent, who
was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to 6
Id., p. 44.
marry petitioner on January 12, 1994. We agree with petitioner's
contention that the court a quo erred in finding that the divorce decree 7
Id., p. 36.
ipso facto clothed respondent with the legal capacity to remarry without
requiring him to adduce sufficient evidence to show the Australian 8
Annex "I"; temporary rollo, p. 9.
personal law governing his status; or at the very least, to prove his legal
capacity to contract the second marriage.
9
The couple secured an Australian "Statutory Declaration" of their x x x x x x x x x
legal separation and division of conjugal assets. See Annexes "3"
and "4" of Respondent's Comment; rollo, p. 48. "Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those which have for their object public
10
Id., pp. 33-35. order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or
11
Id., p. 39. by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country."
12
Amended Answer, p. 2; rollo, p. 39.
Tenchaves v. Escano 15 SCRA 355, 362, November 29,
25
13
Id., pp. 77-78. 1965; Barretto Gonzalez v. Gonzales, 58 Phil. 67, 71-72, March
7, 1933.
14
Id., p. 43.
"Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were
15
Rollo, pp. 48-51.
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this
country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5), and
16
TSN, December 16, 1998, pp. 1-8; records, pp. 172-179. (6), 36, 37, and 38. (71a).
17
RTC Order of December 16, 1998; ibid., p. 203. "Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is
validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained
The case was deemed submitted for decision on January 11,
18
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry,
2000, upon this Court's receipt of the Memorandum for petitioner, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under
signed by Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba. The Memorandum for Philippine law." (As amended by EO 227, prom. July 27, 1987).
respondent, signed by Atty. Gloria V. Gomez of Gomez and
Associates, had been filed on December 10, 1999. Cf. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr., 139 SCRA 139, 143-144, October
26
20
43 Phil. 43, 49, March 3, 1922. 27
Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr., supra.
21
Ruben F. Balane, "Family Courts and Significant Jurisprudence 28
Ibid., p. 143.
in Family Law," Journal of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
1st & 2nd Quarters, 2001, Vol. XXVII, No. 1, p. 25. 29
For a detailed discussion of Van Dorn, see Salonga, Private
International Law, 1995 ed. pp. 295-300. See also Jose C.
"ART. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
22
Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 ed., p.
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon 16;
citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad."
"SEC. 19. Classes of documents. – For the purpose of their
30
Public documents are: People v. Yatco, 97 Phil. 941, 945, November 28, 1955; Marella
38
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., p. 566.
is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the
case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of Ricardo J. Francisco, Evidence: Rules of Court in the
41
the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court Philippines, second edition, p. 382.
having a seal, under the seal of such court."
42
Ibid., p. 384.
34
"Sec. 24. Proof of official record. – The record of public
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
43
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official 119602, October 56, 2000, p. 7.
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if Francisco, p. 29, citing De los Angeles v. Cabahug, 106 839,
44
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that December 29, 1959.
such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is
kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a 45
274 CJS, 15-17, §1.
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which
46
Ibid., p. 611-613, §161.
the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office."
47
27A CJS, 625, §162. 26
Id., pp. 84-89.
48
Rollo, p. 36. 57
Id., pp. 181-182.
50
In passing, we note that the absence of the said certificate is
merely an irregularity in complying with the formal requirement for
procuring a marriage license. Under Article 4 of the Family Code,
an irregularity will not affect the validity of a marriage celebrated
on the basis of a marriage license issued without that certificate.
(Vitug, Compendium, pp. 120-126); Sempio-Diy, Handbook on
the Family Code of the Philippines, 197 reprint, p. 17; Rufus
Rodriguez, The Family Code of the Philippines Annotated, 1990
ed., p. 42; Melencio Sta. Maria Jr., Persons and Family Relations
Law, 1999 ed., p. 146.).
51
Records, pp. 1-3.
52
Ibid., p. 4.
53
Id., p. 5.
54
Id., p. 180.
55
Id., pp. 170-171.