GARCIA VS.
RECIO
G.R. NO. 138322, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 437
Persons and Family Law
TOPIC : Status / Legal Capacity
(No Rights Reserved)
FACTS
Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson,
March 1, 1987
an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal
A decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was
May 18, 1989
issued by an Australian family court
Recio became an Australian citizen, as shown by a "Certificate
June 26, 1992
of Australian Citizenship" issued by the Australian government
Recio married Grace J. Garcia, a Filipino, in Cabanatuan City.
January 12, 1994 In their application for marriage license, Recio was declared
“Single" and "Filipino.“
FACTS
Recio and Garcia begun to live separately without prior
October 22, 1995
judicial dissolution of their marriage
In accordance to the Statutory Declarations secured in Australia,
May 16, 1996
their conjugal assets were divided
Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
March 3, 1998 on the ground of bigamy claiming she only learned of the prior
marriage in November, 1997
Recio was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court
July 7, 1998
in Sydney, Australia because the "marriage ha[d] irretrievably
broken down."
Recio prayed in his answer that it be dismissed for no cause of action.
ISSUES
Whether the divorce between respondent Recio
and Samson was proven
Whether respondent Recio was proven to be
legally capacitated to marry petitioner Garcia
RTC RULING
"WHEREFORE, this Court declares the marriage
between Grace J. Garcia and Rederick A. Recio
solemnized on January 12, 1994 at Cabanatuan City as
dissolved and both parties can now remarry under
existing and applicable laws to any and/or both parties."
RTC RULING
The 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, respondent's 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.
SC RULING ( 1st Issue)
The Supreme Court ruled that the mere presentation of the
divorce decree of respondent’s marriage to Samson is insufficient.
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.
Furthermore, the divorce decree between respondent and Editha
Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an Australian
family court. However, appearance is not sufficient ; compliance
with the rules on evidence must be demonstrated.
SC RULING ( 2nd Issue)
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 Recio may have been restricted. It did not
absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to
his national law.
SC RULING ( 2nd Issue)
Article 21 of the Family Code:
“When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country, it shall be
necessary for them before a marriage license can be obtained, to submit a certificate of legal
capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective diplomatic or consular officials.”
We clarify. To repeat, 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.
Hence, the Court find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that
the Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent’s capacity to remarry despite the paucity of
evidence on this matter.
SC RULING
The Supreme Court REMANDED the case to the
court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence.
The Court cannot grant petitioner’s prayer to
declare her marriage to respondent null and void on
the ground of bigamy because of the question on
respondents legal capacity to marry.
