1

GARCIA v RECIO
G.R. No. 138322. October 2, 2001
TIMELINE
March 1, 1987
- Rederick Recio (Filipino) married Editha
Samson (Australian). The marriage took
place in the Philippines (Malabon, Rizal).
- The spouses lived together in Australia.
May 18, 1989
- Australian family court dissolved the
marriage through a decree of divorce.
Allowing both parties to remarry.
June 26, 1992
- Rederick Recio became an AUS citizen.
January 12, 1994
- Grace Garcia (PET) married Rederick Recio
(RES) in Cabanatuan City.
October 22, 1995
- Garcia and Recio lived separately w/o prior
judicial dissolution of their marriage.
May 16, 1996
- Their conjugal assets were divided while
still in AUS
November, 1997
- Garcia claimed that she learned of
respondents marriage to Editha Samson.
March 3, 1998
- Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage on the ground of
bigamy1.
*** Recio had revealed to Garcia his prior marriage
and its subsequent dissolution; that his first
marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly
dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia
in 1989

1 Bigamy - the act of entering into a marriage with one

person while still legally married to another.

July 7, 1998
- (while the suit for the declaration of
nullity was pending ) Recio was able to
secure a divorce decree from a family
court in Sydney, Australia because the
marriage had irretrievably broken down.
RECIO: prayed that the Complaint be dismissed on
the ground that it stated no cause of action.
TRIAL COURT RULING:
- Marriage is dissolved on the ground that
the divorce issued in Australia was valid
and recognized in the Philippines.
- Decision is based on the divorce decree
obtained by respondent.
- The Australian divorce had ended the
marriage; thus, there was no more
marital union to nullify or annul.
MAIN ISSUES:
1. W/N the divorce between respondent and
Editha Samson was proven.
2. W/N the respondent was proven to be
legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
SUB ISSUES:
1. W/N the trial court gravely erred in finding
that the divorce decree obtained in Australia
by the respondent ipso facto2 terminated his
first marriage to Editha Samson.
2. W/N Recio has the legal capacity to contract
a second marriage with the Garcia.
3. W/N the trial court seriously erred in the
application of Art. 26 of the Family Code in
this case.
4. W/N the trial court patently and grievously
erred in disregarding Arts. 11, 13, 21, 35, 40,
52 and 53 of the Family Code as the
applicable provisions in this case.
5. W/N the trial court gravely erred in
pronouncing that the divorce decree
obtained by the respondent in Australia ipso
facto capacitated the parties to remarry,
without first securing a recognition of the
judgment granting the divorce decree before
our courts.
COURT RULING:
2 Ipso facto by the fact

The Petition is partly meritorious.

1. Article 26 of the Family Code - Lex Loci
Celebrationis - Law of the place where the
contract was celebrated. This principal may
also be seen in Article 17 of the New Civil
Code of the Philippines.
2. Philippine law does not provide for absolute
divorce; hence the courts cannot grant it.
3. A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be
dissolved even by a divorce obtained
abroad, because of Articles 15 and 17of the
Civil Code.
Article 15, Civil Code - Laws relating to family
rights and duties, or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon
citizens of the Philippines, even though living
abroad. (9a)
Article 17, Civil Code - The forms and
solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public
instruments shall be governed by the laws of the
country in which they are executed. When the
acts referred to are executed before the
diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic
of the Philippines in a foreign country, the
solemnities established by Philippine laws shall
be observed in their execution. Prohibitive laws
concerning persons, their acts or property, and
those which have for their object public order,
public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
(11a)

4. Article 26 of the Family Code allows the

former to contract a subsequent marriage in
case the divorce is validly obtained abroad
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry.
5. Before a foreign divorce decree can be
recognized by our courts, the party pleading
it must prove the divorce as a fact and
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign
law allowing it. Presentation solely of the
divorce decree is insufficient.
6. The insufficient proof of the divorce legally
incapacitated Recio to marry Garcia in

1994. Hence, their marriage was void ab

initio.
7. There is no basis for the ruling of the trial
court, which erroneously assumed that the
Australian divorce ipso facto restored
respondents capacity to remarry despite the
paucity of evidence on this matter.
8. The claim of respondent that the divorce
decree raises a disputable presumption or
presumptive evidence as to his civil status
based on Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court has been REJECTED. No proof has
been presented on the legal effects of the
divorce decree obtained under Australian
laws.
SEC. 48, Rule 39. Rules of Court - Effect of foreign
judgments or final orders. The effect of a judgment
or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country,
having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final
order is as follows:
xxxxxxxxx
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a
person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be
repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact.

***The Court REMANDS the case to the court

a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence
which conclusively show respondents legal
capacity to marry petitioner; and failing in that,
of declaring the parties marriage void on the
ground of bigamy, as above discussed.***
RELATION TO ARTICLE 3, NCC
Art. 3, NCC Ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith.
The RTC of Cabanatuan, shall not have
acknowledged the Australian law without securing
recognition of the judgment granting the divorce
decree of the Philippine courts.

The marriage of Recio and Samson took place in

the Philippine land. In this case, following the
principle of lex loci celebrationis, Philippine laws
shall be secured first before acknowledging other
foreign laws.

Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign

laws and judgments; 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 before such divorce is to be
recognized.