GARCIA V.

RECIO
FACTS: Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to an Editha Samson, an Australian citizen. On
May 18, 1989 Australian Family Court issued a decree of divorce allegedly dissolving their
marriage. On June 16, 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen. The petitioner Garcia, who is a
Filipino, married respondent Recio on January 12, 1994. Starting on October 22, 1995 petitioner
and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. On March 3,
1998, Garcia filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy.
She claimed that she learned of respondents marriage to Editha Samson only in November,
1997. Recio averred that, as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior
marriage and its subsequent dissolution. He contended that his first marriage to an Australian
citizen had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in 1989, thus he was
legally capacitated to marry petitioner. While the suit for the declaration of nullity was pending,
respondent secured a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney, Australia. Recio pleaded that
the Complaint be dismissed on the ground that it stated no cause of action. The RTC declared the
marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in
the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign decree or judgment can be recognized by Philippine courts
Whether or not Recio has legal capacity to remarry
HELD: 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. Respondent replies that the Australian
divorce decree, which was validly admitted in evidence, adequately established his legal capacity
to marry under Australian law. However Australian divorce decrees have two different types: (1)
absolute divorce (terminates the marriage) (2) limited (suspends marriage and leaves the bond in
full force). The type of divorce obtained by respondent does not state whether it is absolute or
limited. Moreover, Australian divorce decree includes a restriction that reads A party to a
marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died)
commits the offence of bigamy. The said quotation supports the contention that the divorce
obtained by Recio may have been restricted. His legal capacity to remarry according to his
national law is unverified. Recios claim that the divorce decree raises presumptive evidence as
to his civil status based on Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was denied by court,
because no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the divorce decree obtained under
Australian laws. The rule of court with regards to Effect of foreign judgments or final orders the
court states that 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 cannot conclude the legal capacity to marry of Recio nor can they grant Garcias petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage because theres a possibility that under Australian law,

Recio was really capacitated to marry Garcia as a direct result of the divorce decree. The SC
remanded the case to the court a quo to receive evidence.