Legal library › Case digests › Civil Law
Case digest · Foreign divorce; proof of foreign law
Garcia vs. Recio
He showed the court his Australian divorce decree. Was that enough to prove he was free to marry again?
Facts
1987–1989
Rederick Recio, a Filipino, married Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on March 1, 1987. On May 18, 1989, an Australian family court issued a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving that marriage.
1992–1994
Recio became an Australian citizen on June 26, 1992. On January 12, 1994, he married Grace Garcia, a Filipina, in Cabanatuan City. In their application for a marriage license, he was declared “single” and “Filipino.”
1998
The couple had lived apart since October 22, 1995. On March 3, 1998, Garcia filed a complaint to declare their marriage void on the ground of bigamy, saying she learned of his first marriage only in November 1997. Recio answered that his first marriage had been validly dissolved by the 1989 divorce. On July 7, 1998, while the case was pending, he obtained a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney, Australia, because the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
The trial court
The Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City declared the marriage dissolved on the strength of the Australian divorce, and ruled that both parties could remarry.
Issue
Did Recio prove the 1989 Australian divorce and his legal capacity to marry Garcia in 1994?
Ruling
The divorce decree was admitted in evidence, but his capacity to remarry was not proven. The case was remanded to the trial court.
Before a foreign divorce can be recognized, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and show that it conforms to the foreign law allowing it; the decree alone is not enough. The 1989 decree was admitted only because Garcia’s counsel objected to its non-registration, not to its admissibility. Since the divorce was Recio’s defense, the burden of proving the Australian law behind it fell on him, and Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. The decree he presented was a decree nisi, a conditional judgment, and on its face it warned that a party who marries again before the decree becomes absolute commits bigamy. With no proof of his capacity to remarry, the Court could neither uphold the dissolution nor declare the marriage void. It remanded the case to receive evidence of Recio’s legal capacity to marry Garcia and, failing that, to declare the marriage void on the ground of bigamy.
“Our 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 alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence.”
Doctrine
“Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it.” A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized “provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner,” but “the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven.”
Compare: Republic vs. Manalo
In Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018, the Court En Banc held that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code applies even when the Filipino spouse obtained the divorce abroad, but it still remanded the case for proof of the Japanese law on divorce.
Bar tip
Recognition of a foreign divorce needs two things proven as facts: the divorce decree itself, and the foreign spouse’s national law that allows it and gives the capacity to remarry. The party who relies on the divorce carries the burden.
Watch it explained
Pwede Ka Bang Mag-Divorce sa Pilipinas?
This digest is general legal information for education, not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for reading the decision. Quoted passages are taken word for word from the full text.