Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Key Take - Away or Doctrine To Remember

    Uploaded by

    nicole hinanay
    This case discusses whether a divorce obtained abroad can be recognized in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that for a foreign divorce decree to be valid, the national law of the country where the divorce was obtained must be proven. In this case, the respondent failed to prove the Australian law validating his divorce from his first wife. Additionally, the respondent did not prove he had the legal capacity to marry the petitioner given a restriction in the Australian divorce decree. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned the trial court's decision recognizing the foreign divorce decree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Key Take - Away or Doctrine To Remember

    Uploaded by

    nicole hinanay
    34 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether a divorce obtained abroad can be recognized in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that for a foreign divorce decree to be valid, the national law of the country where the divorce was obtained must be proven. In this case, the respondent failed to prove the Australian law validating his divorce from his first wife. Additionally, the respondent did not prove he had the legal capacity to marry the petitioner given a restriction in the Australian divorce decree. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned the trial court's decision recognizing the foreign divorce decree.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    235 Garcia v Recio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether a divorce obtained abroad can be recognized in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that for a foreign divorce decree to be valid, the national law of the country where the divorce was obtained must be proven. In this case, the respondent failed to prove the Australian law validating his divorce from his first wife. Additionally, the respondent did not prove he had the legal capacity to marry the petitioner given a restriction in the Australian divorce decree. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned the trial court's decision recognizing the foreign divorce decree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    34 views2 pages

    Key Take - Away or Doctrine To Remember

    Uploaded by

    nicole hinanay
    This case discusses whether a divorce obtained abroad can be recognized in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that for a foreign divorce decree to be valid, the national law of the country where the divorce was obtained must be proven. In this case, the respondent failed to prove the Australian law validating his divorce from his first wife. Additionally, the respondent did not prove he had the legal capacity to marry the petitioner given a restriction in the Australian divorce decree. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned the trial court's decision recognizing the foreign divorce decree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    <Marriages

    dissolved by foreign judgment> <Garcia v. Recio> <Hinanay>


    <GR No. 138322.> <October 2, 2001> <Panganiban, J.>
    KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

    A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such 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 not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments; hence, like any other facts,
    both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence.
    RECIT-READY / SUMMARY
    The case is a petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the January 7, 1999 Decision and the
    March 24, 1999 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 28, in Civil Case No. 3026AF. The assailed
    Decision disposed as follows:

    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. The assailed Order denied reconsideration of the above-quoted Decision.
    FACTS
    Rederick Recio (Filipino) was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen in Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987.
    They lived together as husband and wife in Australia.
    May 18, 1989: a decree of divorce dissolved the marriage was issued by an Australian Family Court
    June 26, 1992: respondent became an Australian citizen as shown by a certificate of Australian Citizenship issued
    by the Australian government.
    Petitioner (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.
    May 16, 1996: while the two were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided in accordance with their
    Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.
    March 3, 1998: petitioner filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of bigamy. She
    learned of respondents marriage to Editha Samon only in November, 1997.
    Respondent claims that he had revelaed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution. Thuse, he
    was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994.
    July 7, 1998: or about five years after the couples wedding and 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 because the
    marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down.
    Respondent prayed 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 based its Decision on the divorce decree obtained by respondent.
    ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED
    1. Whether the divorce between respondent
    and Editha Samson was proven Art 11, 13, 26 and 52, FC.
    2. Whether respondent was proven to be
    legally capacitated to marry petitioner.

    HELD

    1. Proving the Divorce Between Respondent and Editha Samson
    In Art 26 of the FC, marriages solemnized abroad are governed by the law of the place where they were celebrated.
    Thus, it requires the presentation of the foreign law to show the conformity of the marriage in question to the legal
    requirements of the place where the marriage was performed.

    The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or
    defense of an action. Since the divorce was a defense raised by respondent, the burden of proving the pertinent
    Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him.

    2. Respondents Legal Capacity to Remarry
    On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:

    <Marriages dissolved by foreign judgment> <Garcia v. Recio> <Hinanay>
    <GR No. 138322.> <October 2, 2001> <Panganiban, J.>
    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.

    The Court also reject the claim of respondent that the divorce decree raises a disputable presumption or
    presumptive evidence as to his civil status based on Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, for the simple reason
    that no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the divorce decree obtained under Australian laws.

    Based on the above records, The Court cannot conclude that respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian
    citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994. The Court upheld the petitioners
    contention that 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.

    The Court cannot 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.
    OPINION (CONCURRING) OPINION (DISSENTING)

    You might also like