GARCIA VS RECIO

Facts: Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the

court a quo, on the ground of bigamy alleging respondent was not legally
capacitated to marry her on January 12, 1994 because of his prior subsisting
marriage to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen. Respondent claimed that
petitioner knew of his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution. He had
obtained adivorce decree as proof of his legal capacity to marry petitioner in
1994.
While the suit for the declaration of nullity was still pending, respondent, who had
become a naturalized Australian citizen in 1992, secured a divorce decree in
Sydney, Australia for the dissolution of his marriage with petitioner on the ground
that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. This was recognized by the
trial court in rendering its assailed decision that deemed the marriage between
respondent and petitioner ended not on the basis of respondents alleged lack of
legal capacity to remarry but on the basis of the divorce decree (Australian
divorce) obtained by respondent.
Petitioner argues that the divorce decree may only be given recognition in this
jurisdiction upon proof of existence of (1) the foreign law allowing absolute
divorce, and (2) the alleged divorce decree itself.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was
proven; and
(2) Whether or not respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry
petitioner.
Held:
(1) Yes. The divorce decree has to be admitted in evidence with
theregistration requirements under Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code in
order to prove the divorce as a fact and prove its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it for our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. However,
compliance with the registrationrequirements is no longer binding to respondent
for he has acquired Australian Citizenship and therefore, he is no longer bound
byPhilippine personal laws. Respondent submitted the divorce decreeand was
rendered admissible by the trial court as a written act of the Family Court of
Sydney, Autralia and accorded weight by the judge.

(2) No. The court held that respondents presentation of a decree nisi or an
interlocutory decree-a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce showed that
the divorce obtained may have been restricted; it did not absolutely establish his
legal capacity to remarry according to national law. Respondent also failed to
submit a Certificate of Legal Capacity together with the application for a marriage
license required by Article 21 of the Family Code which would have been
admitted as a prima facie evidence of his legal capacity to marry. The Court finds
no absolute evidence that proves that respondent, who was then a naturalized
Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12,
1994.