[G.R. No. 138322. October 2, 2001] GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, pettoner GARCIA-RECIO, pettoner,, vs. vs. REDERICK A. RECIO, responden responden .. A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdicon, provided such decree is valid according to the naonal law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial noce of foreign laws and judgments hence, like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the naonal law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence. Te !act" !ederick A. !ecio "!ecio#, a $ilipino, was married to %ditha &amson, an Australian cizen, in 'alabon, !izal, on 'arch (, ()*+. hey lived together as husband and wife in Australia. On 'ay (*, ()*), a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian family court. On -une /, ()), !ecio became an Australian cizen, as shown by a 0er1cate of Australian 0izenship issued by the Australian government. 2eonerr 3race 3race 3arcia, $ilipino $ilipino and !ecio !ecio were were married married on -anuary -anuary (, ())4 in Our 5ady of 2eone 2erpetua 2erpetuall Help 0hurch 0hurch in 0abanatua 0abanatuan n 0ity. 0ity. 6+7 8n their their applicaton for for a marria marriage ge licens license, e, respondent was declared as single and $ilipino. 6*7
&tarng October , ())9, !ecio and 3arcia lived separately without prior judicial dissoluon of their marriage. :hile the two were sll in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on 'ay (/, ())/, in accordance with their &tatutory ;eclaraons secured in Australia. 6)7 On 'arch <, ())*, 3arcia 1led a 0omplaint for ;eclaraon of =ullity of 'arriage on the ground of bigamy >> respondent allegedly had a prior subsisng marriage at the me he married her on -anuary (, ())4. &he claimed that she learned of respondents marriage to %ditha &amson only in =ovember, ())+.
8n his Answer, respondent averred that, as far back as ())<, he had revealed to peoner his prior marriage and its and its subse?uent dissoluon. 6((7 He contended contended that his 1rst marriage to an Australian cizen had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in ()*) 6(7 thus, he was legally capacitated to marry peoner in ())4.
On -uly +, ())* >> or about 1ve years a@er the couples wedding and while the suit for the declara declaraon on of nullity nullity was pending >> responden respondentt was able to secure secure a divorce divorce decree from a family court in &ydney, &ydney, Australia because the marriage ha6d7 irretrievably broken down. 6(<7 prayed in his Answer that the 0omplaint be dismissed on the ground that it stated no !espondent prayed cause of acon. R#$%&' o( te Tr%a$ Co#rt declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the 2hilippines. 8t deemed the marriage ended, but not on t he basis of any defect in an essenal element of the marriage that is, respondens alleged lack of legal capaciy o remarry . !ather, it based its ;ecision on the divorce decree obtained by respondent. he Australian divorce had ended the marriage thus, there was no more marital union to nullify or annul. I""#e" "(# whether the divorce between between respondent respondent and %ditha &amson &amson was proven "# whether respondent respondent was proven proven to be legally capacitated capacitated to marry peoner
Te Co#rt" R#$%&' !%r"t I""#e) 'ere presentaon of the divorce decree of respondents marriage to &amson is insuBcient. Cefore a foreign divorce decree 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. At the outset, we lay the following basic legal principles as the take>oD points for our discussion.
2hilippine law does not provide for absolute divorce hence, our courts cannot grant it. 6(7 A marriage between two $ilipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Arcles (9 67 and (+ 6<7 of the 0ivil 0ode. 0ode .647
8n miEed marriages involving a $ilipino and a foreigner, Arcle /
697
of the $amily 0ode allows the former to contract a subse?uent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitang him or her to remarry. remarry .6/7
obtained abroad by a couple, couple, who are both aliens, may be recognize recognized d in the A divorce obtained 2hilippines, provided it is consistent with their respecve naonal laws. 6+7 A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the 2hilippines, provided they are valid according to their naonal law. herefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, t he party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it .6)7 2resentaon solely of the divorce decree is insuBcient. Fnder &econs 4 and 9 of !ule (<, on the other hand, a wring or document may be proven as a public or oBcial record of a foreign country by either "(# an oBcial publicaon or "# a copy thereof aGested6<<7 by the oBcer having legal custody of the document. 8f the record is not kept in the 2hilippin 2hilippines, es, such copy must be "a# accompanied accompanied by a cer1cat cer1cate e issued issued by the proper diplomac or consular oBcer in the 2hilippine foreign service staoned in the foreign country in which the record is kept and "b# authencated by the seal of his oBce. he divorce decree between respondent and %ditha &amson appears to be an authenc one issued by an Australian family court. However, appearance is not suBcient compliance with the aforemenoned aforemenoned rules on evidence must be demonstrated. $ortunately for respondents cause, when the divorce decree of 'ay (*, ()*) was submiGed in evidence, counsel for peoner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the 5ocal 0ivil !egistry of 0abanatuan 0ity. he trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject to peoners ?uali1caon. Hence, it was admiGed in evidence and accorded weight weight by the judge. judge. 8ndeed, 8ndeed, peoners peoners failure failure to object object properly properly rendered rendered the divorce divorce decree decree admissible as a wriGen act of the $amily 0ourt of &ydney, Australia. Australia. 0ompliance with the arcles ((, (< and 9 of the $amily 0ode is not necessary respondent was no longer longer bound by 2hilippin 2hilippine e personal personal laws a@er he ac?uired ac?uired Australian Australian cizenship cizenship in ()). =aturalizaon is the legal act of adopng an alien and clothing him with the polical and civil rights belonging to a cizen. =aturalized cizens, freed from the protecve cloak of their former states, don the ares of their adopve countries. Cy becoming an Australian, respondent severed his allegiance to the 2hilippines and the vinculum juris that juris that had ed him to 2hilippine personal laws. he burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the eEistence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecuon or defense of an acon. &ince the divorce was a defense raised by !ecio, the burden of proving the pernent Australian law validang it falls s?uarely upon him. 8t is well>seGled in our jurisdicon that our courts cannot take judicial noce of foreign laws. 64<7 5ike any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those maGers that judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial funcon.
*eco&+ I""#e) he Australian divorce decree, although validly admiGed in evidence, ;8; =O ade?uately establish !ecios legal capacity to marry under Australian law. He was therefore not legally capacitated to marry 3arcia in ())4 their marriage was void ab inio. 8n its strict legal sense, divorce means the legal dissoluon of a lawful union for a cause arising a@er marriage. Cut divorces are of diDerent types. he two basic ones are "(# absolute divorce or a vinculo marimonii and "# limited divorce or a mensa e horo. he 1rst kind terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. here is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent. !espondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree >> a condional or provisional judgment of divorce. 8t is in eDect the same as a separaon from bed and board, although an absolute divorce may follow a@er the lapse o f the prescribed period during which no reconciliaon is eDected. %ven a@er the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes and pracces, sll restrict remarriage. Fnder some other jurisdicons, remarriage may be limited by statute thus, the guilty party in a divorce which was granted on the ground of adultery may be prohibited from marrying again. he court may allow a remarriage only a@er proof of good behavior. 64+7
On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restricon that readsI 1. A pary o a marriage who marries again efore his decree ecomes asolue !unless he oher pary has died" commis he o#ence of igamy. 64*7 his ?uotaon bolsters our contenon that the divorce obtained by respondent may have been restricted. 8t did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to his naonal law. Hence, we 1nd no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that the Australian divorce ipso faco restored respondents capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this maGer. Signifcance o he Certfcae o Legal Capaciy he legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the naonal law of the party concerned. he cer1cate menoned in Arcle ( of the $amily 0ode would have been suBcient to establish the legal capacity of respondent, had he duly presented it in court. A duly authencated and admiGed cer1cate is prima facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license .69J7 here is absolutely no evidence that proves respondents legal capacity to marry peoner. :e cannot conclude that !ecio, who was then a naturalized Australian cizen, was legally capacitated to marry peoner on -anuary (, ())4. he court a $uo erred in 1nding that the divorce decree ipso facto clothed respondent with the legal capacity to remarry without re?uiring him to adduce suBcient 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. =either can we grant peoners prayer to declare her marriage to respondent null and void on the ground of bigamy. A@er all, it may turn out that under Australian law, he was really capacitated to marry peoner 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 peoners legal capacity to marry peoner. $ailing in that, then the court a $uo may declare a nullity of the pares marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being already in evidence two eEisng marriage cer1cates, which were both obtained in the 2hilippines, one in 'alabon, 'etro 'anila dated 'arch
ERE!ORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and substanal jusce, we R%&A'D the case to the court a $uo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondents legal capacity to marry peoner and failing in that, of declaring the pares marriage void on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed. =o costs. *O ORDERED.
