GROUP 2

GARCIA VS. RECIO - GR NO. 138322

FACTS:
Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson an Australian citizen, on March 1,
1987.
On May 18, 1989 a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage was issued by the Australian
Family Court.
On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen. Subsequently, respondent entered
into marriage with petitioner a Filipina on January 12, 1994.
Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial
dissolution of their marriage.
On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the
ground of bigamy. Respondent contended that his prior marriage had been validly dissolved by
a decree of divorce obtained in Australia thus he is legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
The trial court rendered the decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent
dissolved and both parties can now remarry.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce obtained by respondent in Australia ipso facto capacitated him to
remarry.
HELD:
The SC remanded the case to the trial court to receive evidence.
Based on the records, the court cannot conclude that respondent who was then a naturalized
Australian citizen was legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
Neither can the court grant petitioners prayer to declare her marriage 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 result of the divorce decree

MADRIDEJO V. DE LEON
GR No. 32473, October 6, 1930
Facts:
Eulogio de Leon and Flaviana Perez were married and had one child: Domingo de Leon. After
Eulogio died in 1915, Flaviana lived with Pedro Madridejo. In 1917, the registry of births
indicated that they begot Melecio Madridejo. When Flaviana was about to die, the parish priest
solemnized her marriage to Pedro in articulo mortis. However the priest was not able to submit
a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary. Domingo de Leon, her son by her
first marriage died eight years later.
In settling the properties left by Eulogio de Leon, CFI Laguna ruled that Melecio is Domingos
next of kin; that the marriage of Pedro and Flaviana was valid, and that such marriage
legitimated Melecio Madridejo as their son.
The defendants, Gonzalo de Leon raised the following issues to the SC:
Issues:
W/N Pedros and Flavianas in articulo mortis marriage is valid? W/N such marriage legitimated
Melecio as their natural child?
Held:
YES. NO, CFI judgement is reversed.
First Issue. The mere fact that the parish priest failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate
to the municipal secretary does not invalidate the marriage in articulo mortis because it does not
appear that the essential requisites required by law for its validty were lacking in the ceremony.
Forwarding of the marriage certificate is not one of the essential requisites.
Second Issue. As there have been no contentions that Melecio is not the natural child of Pedro
and Flaviana, the issue here is whether the subsequent marriage of his parents legitimated
him? Art. 121 of the CC provides that children shall be considered as legitimated by a
subsequent marriage only when they have been acknowledged by the parents before or after
the celebration thereof. The natural child born out of wedlock must have been acknowledged by
the parents either before or after its celebration. There are 2 kinds of acknowledgement:
voluntary and compulsory.
Art. 131 provides for voluntary acknowledgement: the acknowledgement of a natural child must
be made in the record of birth, in a will, or some other public document.

Art. 135 provides for compulsory: the father may be compelled to acknowledge his natural child
in the following cases: (1) when an indisputable paper written by him expressly acknowledging

his paternity exists, (2) whenthe child has been in the uninterrupted possession of the status of
a natural child of the father justified by the conduct of the father himself or that of his family.

Art. 136 provides for compulsory ack. by the mother: the mother may be compelled to
acknowledge her natural child (1) when the child is, with respect to the mother, included in any
of the cases mentioned in the next preceding article; (2) when the fact of the birth and the
identity of the child are fully proven.
In this case, Pedro did not voluntarily acknowledge Madridejo in a public document. The registry
certificate of birth is not the record of birth provided by law because it lacks requisite of article 48
of the civil registry law. It may be a public document but it has neither been executed nor signed
by Pedro and it contains no statement that he acknowledges Melecio. As for Flaviana, it does
not appear that she spullied data in the civil registry of births or in the baptismal register which
only constitutes proof of baptism and not filiation. There was no voluntary acknowledgement.
In compulsory acknowledgement, Melecio must institute an action for acknowledgement as a
natural child against his putative parents. In this case, Melecio did not only not demand to be
acknowledged as a natural child, which is the condition precedent to establishing his
legitimation by the subsequent marriage and his right to the estate of his half-brother, Domingo.
Melecio avers that the second paragraph of de Leons answer amounts to an admission that he
is indeed Flavianas son and relieves him of the burden of proving that his mother
acknowledged him before her marriage. Such admission would have been effective if his action
was directed at compelling Flaviana or her heirs to acknowledge Melecio as her son.

GROUP 2
Clark, Immaculate
Lucas, Leslie
Antopina, Babielen
Camasura, jason
Pelaez, Chester Bryan