G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 Cabanatuan City.

7 In their application for a marriage license,

respondent was declared as "single" and "Filipino."8
GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner,
vs. Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately
REDERICK A. RECIO, respondents. without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. While the two were
still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in
PANGANIBAN, J.:
accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.9
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our
On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity
jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law
of Marriage10 in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy –
of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing
respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he
personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be
married her on January 12, 1994. She claimed that she learned of
proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and
respondent's marriage to Editha Samson only in November, 1997.
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 In his Answer, respondent averred that, as far back as 1993, he had
law on evidence. revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent
dissolution.11 He contended that his first marriage to an Australian
The Case
citizen had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Australian in 1989;12 thus, he was legally capacitated to marry
seeking to nullify the January 7, 1999 Decision1 and the March 24, petitioner in 1994.1âwphi1.nêt
1999 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch
28, in Civil Case No. 3026-AF. The assailed Decision disposed as On July 7, 1998 – or about five years after the couple's wedding and
while the suit for the declaration of nullity was pending – respondent
follows:
was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney,
"WHEREFORE, this Court declares the marriage between Australia because the "marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down."13
Grace J. Garcia and Rederick A. Recio solemnized on January
12, 1994 at Cabanatuan City as dissolved and both parties can Respondent prayed in his Answer that the Complained be dismissed
now remarry under existing and applicable laws to any and/or on the ground that it stated no cause of action.14 The Office of the
Solicitor General agreed with respondent.15 The court marked and
both parties."3
admitted the documentary evidence of both parties.16 After they
The assailed Order denied reconsideration of the above-quoted submitted their respective memoranda, the case was submitted for
Decision. resolution.17
The Facts Thereafter, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision and Order.
Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Ruling of the Trial Court
Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on March 1, 1987.4 They lived
together as husband and wife in Australia. On May 18, 1989,5 a The trial court declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the
decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Philippines.
It deemed the marriage ended, but not on the basis of any defect in an
an Australian family court.
essential element of the marriage; that is, respondent's alleged lack of
On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen, as shown legal capacity to remarry. Rather, it based its Decision on the divorce
by a "Certificate of Australian Citizenship" issued by the Australian decree obtained by respondent. The Australian divorce had ended the
government.6 Petitioner – a Filipina – and respondent were married on marriage; thus, there was no more martial union to nullify or annual.
January 12, 1994 in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in
Hence, this Petition.18
Issues Petitioner assails the trial court's recognition of the divorce between
respondent and Editha Samson. Citing Adong v. Cheong Seng
Petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration:
Gee,20 petitioner argues that the divorce decree, like any other foreign
"I judgment, may be given recognition in this jurisdiction only upon proof
The trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorce decree of the existence of (1) the foreign law allowing absolute divorce and (2)
obtained in Australia by the respondent ipso facto terminated the alleged divorce decree itself. She adds that respondent miserably
his first marriage to Editha Samson thereby capacitating him to failed to establish these elements.
contract a second marriage with the petitioner. Petitioner adds that, based on the first paragraph of Article 26 of the
"2 Family Code, marriages solemnized abroad are governed by the law
of the place where they were celebrated (the lex loci celebrationist). In
The failure of the respondent, who is now a naturalized effect, the Code requires the presentation of the foreign law to show
Australian, to present a certificate of legal capacity to marry the conformity of the marriage in question to the legal requirements of
constitutes absence of a substantial requisite voiding the the place where the marriage was performed.
petitioner' marriage to the respondent.
At the outset, we lay the following basic legal principles as the take-off
"3 points for our discussion. Philippine law does not provide for absolute
The trial court seriously erred in the application of Art. 26 of the divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it.21 A marriage between two
Family Code in this case. Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad,
because of Articles 1522 and 1723 of the Civil Code.24 In mixed
"4 marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 2625 of the
The trial court patently and grievously erred in disregarding Arts. Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in
11, 13, 21, 35, 40, 52 and 53 of the Family Code as the case the divorce is "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
applicable provisions in this case. capacitating him or her to remarry."26 A divorce obtained abroad by a
couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines,
"5
provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.27
The trial court gravely erred in pronouncing that the divorce
A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and
gravely erred in pronouncing that the divorce decree obtained
proof are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees
by the respondent in Australia ipso facto capacitated the parties
that "aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in
to remarry, without first securing a recognition of the judgment
the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national
granting the divorce decree before our courts."19
law."28 Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized
The Petition raises five issues, but for purposes of this Decision, we by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact
shall concentrate on two pivotal ones: (1) whether the divorce between and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing
respondent and Editha Samson was proven, and (2) whether it.29 Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.
respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
Divorce as a Question of Fact
Because of our ruling on these two, there is no more necessity to take
up the rest. Petitioner insists that before a divorce decree can be admitted in
evidence, it must first comply with the registration requirements under
The Court's Ruling
Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code. These articles read as
The Petition is partly meritorious. follows:
First Issue: "ART. 11. Where a marriage license is required, each of the
Proving the Divorce Between Respondent and Editha Samson contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for
such license with the proper local civil registrar which shall The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears
specify the following: to be an authentic one issued by an Australian family
court.35 However, appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the
xxx xxx xxx
aforemetioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated.
"(5) If previously married, how, when and where the previous
Fortunately for respondent's cause, when the divorce decree of May
marriage was dissolved or annulled;
18, 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected,
xxx xxx xxx not to its admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been
"ART. 13. In case either of the contracting parties has been registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City.36 The trial
previously married, the applicant shall be required to furnish, court ruled that it was admissible, subject to petitioner's
instead of the birth of baptismal certificate required in the last qualification.37Hence, it was admitted in evidence and accorded
preceding article, the death certificate of the deceased spouse weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioner's failure to object properly
or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family
or her previous marriage. x x x. Court of Sydney, Australia.38

"ART. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family
the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of Code is not necessary; respondent was no longer bound by Philippine
the spouses, and the delivery of the children's presumptive personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in
legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and 1992.39 Naturalization is the legal act of adopting an alien and
registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect their clothing him with the political and civil rights belonging to a
persons." citizen.40 Naturalized citizens, freed from the protective cloak of their
former states, don the attires of their adoptive countries. By becoming
Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Australian divorce an Australian, respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines
decree is a public document – a written official act of an Australian and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal laws.
family court. Therefore, it requires no further proof of its authenticity
and due execution. Burden of Proving Australian Law

Respondent is getting ahead of himself. Before a foreign judgment is Respondent contends that the burden to prove Australian divorce law
given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be falls upon petitioner, because she is the party challenging the validity
presented and admitted in evidence.30 A divorce obtained abroad is of a foreign judgment. He contends that petitioner was satisfied with
proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a the original of the divorce decree and was cognizant of the marital
judgment is the judgment itself.31 The decree purports to be a written laws of Australia, because she had lived and worked in that country for
act or record of an act of an officially body or tribunal of a foreign quite a long time. Besides, the Australian divorce law is allegedly
country.32 known by Philippine courts: thus, judges may take judicial notice of
foreign laws in the exercise of sound discretion.
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or
document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign We are not persuaded. The burden of proof lies with "the party who
country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or
attested33 by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the defense of an action."41 In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of
record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) proving the material allegations of the complaint when those are
accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or denied by the answer; and defendants have the burden of proving the
consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign material allegations in their answer when they introduce new
country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of matters.42 Since the divorce was a defense raised by respondent, the
his office.34 burden of proving the pertinent Australian law validating it falls
squarely upon him.
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial "1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree
notice of foreign laws.43 Like any other facts, they must be alleged becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits
and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters that the offence of bigamy."48
judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial This quotation bolsters our contention that the divorce obtained by
function.44 The power of judicial notice must be exercised with respondent may have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish
caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be his legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Hence, we
resolved in the negative. find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously
Second Issue: assumed that the Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent's
capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter.
Respondent's Legal Capacity to Remarry
We also reject the claim of respondent that the divorce decree raises a
Petitioner contends that, in view of the insufficient proof of the divorce,
disputable presumption or presumptive evidence as to his civil status
respondent was legally incapacitated to marry her in 1994.
based on Section 48, Rule 3949 of the Rules of Court, for the simple
Hence, she concludes that their marriage was void ab initio. reason that no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the
Respondent replies that the Australian divorce decree, which was divorce decree obtained under Australian laws.
validly admitted in evidence, adequately established his legal capacity Significance of the Certificate of Legal Capacity
to marry under Australian law.
Petitioner argues that the certificate of legal capacity required by
Respondent's contention is untenable. In its strict legal Article 21 of the Family Code was not submitted together with the
sense, divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a application for a marriage license. According to her, its absence is
cause arising after marriage. But divorces are of different types. The proof that respondent did not have legal capacity to remarry.
two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2)
We clarify. To repeat, the legal capacity to contract marriage is
limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the
determined by the national law of the party concerned. The certificate
marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full
mentioned in Article 21 of the Family Code would have been sufficient
force.45 There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce
to establish the legal capacity of respondent, had he duly presented it
was procured by respondent.
in court. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie
Respondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree – a evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant
conditional or provisional judgment of divorce. It is in effect the same for a marriage license.50
as a separation from bed and board, although an absolute divorce
As it is, however, there is absolutely no evidence that proves
may follow after the lapse of the prescribed period during which no
respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner. A review of the records
reconciliation is effected.46
before this Court shows that only the following exhibits were presented
Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some before the lower court: (1) for petitioner: (a) Exhibit "A" –
foreign statutes and practices, still restrict remarriage. Under some Complaint;51 (b) Exhibit "B" – Certificate of Marriage Between
other jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited by statute; thus, the Rederick A. Recto (Filipino-Australian) and Grace J. Garcia (Filipino)
guilty party in a divorce which was granted on the ground of adultery on January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija;52 (c) Exhibit
may be prohibited from remarrying again. The court may allow a "C" – Certificate of Marriage Between Rederick A. Recio (Filipino) and
remarriage only after proof of good behavior.47 Editha D. Samson (Australian) on March 1, 1987 in Malabon, Metro
On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction Manila;53 (d) Exhibit "D" – Office of the City Registrar of Cabanatuan
that reads: City Certification that no information of annulment between Rederick
A. Recto and Editha D. Samson was in its records;54 and (e) Exhibit
"E" – Certificate of Australian Citizenship of Rederick A. Recto;55 (2)
for respondent: (Exhibit "1" – Amended Answer;56 (b) Exhibit "S" –
Family Law Act 1975 Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage in the
Family Court of Australia;57 (c) Exhibit "3" – Certificate of Australian
Citizenship of Rederick A. Recto;58 (d) Exhibit "4" – Decree Nisi of
Dissolution of Marriage in the Family Court of Australia
Certificate;59 and Exhibit "5" – Statutory Declaration of the Legal
Separation Between Rederick A. Recto and Grace J. Garcia Recio
since October 22, 1995.60
Based on the above records, we cannot conclude that respondent,
who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated
to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994. We agree with petitioner's
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.
Neither can we grant petitioner's 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. Hence, we believe
that the most judicious course is to remand this case to the trial court
to receive evidence, if any, which show petitioner's legal capacity to
marry petitioner. Failing in that, then the court a quo may declare a
nullity of the parties' marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being
already in evidence two existing marriage certificates, which were both
obtained in the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro Manila dated March
1, 1987 and the other, in Cabanatuan City dated January 12, 1994.
WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial
justice, we REMAND the case to the court a quofor the purpose of
receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent's legal
capacity to marry petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the parties'
marriage void on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.