Garcia v. Recio (2001)

GARCIA V. RECIO

G.R. No. 366

October 2, 2001

FACTS:

·       Petitioner: Grace J. GARCIA (aka Grace J. Garcia-Recio)

·       Respondent: Rederick A. Recio

o   March 1, 1987: Was married to Editha Samson (Australian citizen)

·       Lived together in Australia

·       May 18, 1987: Divorce decree was issued by an Australian family court

o   June 26, 1992: Became an Australian citizen

o   January 12, 1994: Married petitioner Grace J. Garcia (Cabanatuan city)

·       In application for marriage license, respondent was declared single and Filipino

o   October 22, 1995: Petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of marriage

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

·       March 3, 1998: Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy

o   Petitioner claims she only found out about respondent's previous marriage on November 1997.

o   Respondent averred that he informed petitioner of his previous marriage and its dissolution as far back as 1993.

o   Respondent contends his first marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly dissolved, thus legally capacitating him to remarry

·       July 7, 1998 - respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Australia; marriage "irretrievably broken down."

o   Hoped the Complaint be dismissed on the ground that it stated no cause of action; OSG agreed with the respondent

·       RTC: declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the PH.

o   Australian divorce had ended marriage - no marital union to annul/nullify

ISSUE/S:

·       Whether or not respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

·       No.

o   There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent.

o   Legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned.

o   No absolute evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license.

o   No absolute evidence that proves respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner.

o   Upon reviewing exhibits, Court cannot conclude that respondent who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner.

JUDGMENT:

·       Petition is partly meritorious

·       Case s REMANDED to trial court for reception of evidence

o   Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient

·       Compliance with the aforementioned rules of evidence must be demonstrated

ARGUMENTS:

·       Petitioner: the divorce decree, like any other foreign judgment, may be given recognition in this jurisdiction only upon the proof of existence of (1) the foreign law allowing it (Article 26 Family Code), (2) alleged divorce decree itself. (See Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee)

·       Respondent argues that the Australian divorce decree itself is a public document, written official act of an Australian family court, requires no further proof of its authentication and due execution

o   Court: document must first be presented and admitted as evidence

o   The best evidence of judgment is a judgment itself