CASE DIGEST NO. 2 G.R. No. 138322. October 2, 2001 GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO,, Petitioner , v. REDERICK A. RECIO, respondent . FACTS
This is a Petition Petition for Review Review under Rule Rule ! of the Rules Rules of Court, Court, see"in# to nullif$ the %anuar$ &, '((( De)ision and the *ar)h 2, '((( Order of the Re#ional Trial Trial Court of Ca+anatuan Ca+anatuan Cit$, Cit$, ran)h 2-, in Civil Case No. /20A de)larin# de)larin# the 1arria#e +etween Gra)e %. Gar)ia and Rederi)" A. Re)io sole1nied on %anuar$ '2, '(( at Ca+anatuan Cit$ as dissolved and +oth 3arties )an now re1arr$ under e4istin# and a33li)a+le laws to an$ and5or +oth 3arties. The assailed Order denied re)onsideration re)onsideration of the a+ove67uoted De)ision. Rederi)" A. Re)io, a 8ili3ino, was 1arried to Editha Sa1son, an Australian )itien, in *ala+on, Rial, on *ar)h ', '(-&. The$ lived to#ether as hus+and and wife in Australia. On *a$ '-, '(-(, a de)ree of divor)e, 3ur3ortedl$ dissolvin# the 1arria#e, was issued +$ an Australian fa1il$ )ourt. On %une 20, '((2, res3ondent +e)a1e an Australian )itien, as shown +$ a Certi9)ate of Australian Citienshi3 issued +$ the Australian #overn1ent. Petitioner 66 a 8ili3ina 66 and res3ondent were 1arried on %anuar$ '2, '(( in Our :ad$ of Per3etual ;el3 Chur)h in Ca+anatuan Cit$. Cit$. In their application for application for a 1arria#e li)ense, res3ondent was de)lared as sin#le and 8ili3ino. Startin# O)to+er 22, '((!, 3etitioner and res3ondent lived se3aratel$ without 3rior thus, he was le#all$ )a3a)itated to 1arr$ 3etitioner in '((. On %ul$ &, '((- 66 or a+out 9ve $ears after the )ou3le=s weddin# and while the suit for the de)laration of nullit$ was 3endin# 66 res3ondent was a+le to se)ure a divor)e de)ree fro1 a fa1il$ )ourt in S$dne$, Australia +e)ause the 1arria#e ha?d@ irretrieva+l$ +ro"en down. Res3ondent 3ra$ed in his Answer that the Co13laint +e dis1issed on the #round that it stated no )ause of a)tion. ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itted the do)u1entar$ eviden)e of +oth 3arties. After the$ su+1itted their res nda, the )ase was su+1itted for resolution. Thereafter, the trial )ourt rendered the assailed De)ision and Order.
ISS!ES
"1#
Bhether or not the divor)e +etween res3ondent and Editha Sa1son was 3roven "2# Bhether or not the res3ondent was 3roven to +e le#all$ )a3a)itated to 1arr$ 3etitioner.
$E%D F&r't I''(e
Proving the Divorce Between Respondent and Editha Samson A 1arria#e +etween two 8ili3inos )annot +e dissolved even +$ a divor)e o+tained a+road, +e)ause of Arti)les '! and '& of the Civil Code. In 1i4ed 1arria#es involvin# a 8ili3ino and a forei#ner, Arti)le 20 of the 8a1il$ Code allows the for1er to )ontra)t a su+se7uent 1arria#e in )ase the divor)e is validl$ o+tained a+road +$ the alien s3ouse )a3a)itatin# hi1 or her to re1arr$. A divor)e o+tained a+road +$ a )ou3le, who are +oth aliens, 1a$ +e re)o#nied in the Phili33ines, 3rovided it is )onsistent with their res3e)tive national laws. A )o13arison +etween 1arria#e and divor)e, as far as 3leadin# and 3roof are )on)erned, )an +e 1ade. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. de)rees that aliens 1a$ o+tain divor)es a+road, whi)h 1a$ +e re)o#nied in the Phili33ines, 3rovided the$ are valid a))ordin# to their national law. Therefore, +efore a forei#n divor)e de)ree )an +e re)o#nied +$ our )ourts, the 3art$ 3leadin# it 1ust 3rove the divor)e as a fa)t and de1onstrate its )onfor1it$ to the forei#n law allowin# it. Presentation solel$ of the divor)e de)ree is insu)ient .
?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itted the do)u1entar$ eviden)e of +oth 3arties. After the$ su+1itted their res3e)tive ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte ?' The O)e of the Soli)itor General a#reed with res3ondent. The )ourt 1ar"ed and ad1itte
Divorce as a Question o !act Petitioner insists that +efore a divor)e de)ree )an +e ad1itted in eviden)e, it 1ust 9rst )o13l$ with the re#istration re7uire1ents under Arti)les '', ' and !2 of the 8a1il$ Code. Res3ondent, on the other hand, ar#ues that the Australian divor)e de)ree is a 3u+li) do)u1ent 66 a written o)ial a)t of an Australian fa1il$ )ourt. Therefore, it re7uires no further 3roof of its authenti)it$ and due e4e)ution. Res3ondent is #ettin# ahead of hi1self. efore a forei#n the +est eviden)e of a thus, and defendants have the +urden of 3rovin# the 1aterial alle#ations in their answer when the$ introdu)e new 1atters. Sin)e the divor)e was a defense raised +$ res3ondent, the +urden of 3rovin# the 3ertinent Australian law validatin# it falls s7uarel$ u3on hi1. It is well6settled in our
Respondents #egal $apacit% to Remarr% Petitioner )ontends that, in view of the insu)ient 3roof of the divor)e, res3ondent was le#all$ in)a3a)itated to 1arr$ her in '((. ;en)e, she )on)ludes that their 1arria#e was void a& initio. Res3ondent re3lies that the Australian divor)e de)ree, whi)h was validl$ ad1itted in eviden)e, ade7uatel$ esta+lished his le#al )a3a)it$ to 1arr$ under Australian law. Res3ondent=s )ontention is untena+le. In its stri)t le#al sense, divorce 1eans the le#al dissolution of a lawful union for a )ause arisin# after 1arria#e. ut divor)es are of dierent t$3es> ' a+solute divor)e or a vinculo matrimonii and 2 li1ited divor)e or a mensa et thoro. The 9rst "ind ter1inates the 1arria#e, while the se)ond sus3ends it and leaves the +ond in full for)e. There is no showin# in the )ase at +ar whi)h t$3e of divor)e was 3ro)ured +$ res3ondent. ;e 3resented a de)ree nisi or an interlo)utor$ de)ree 66 a )onditional or 3rovisional
acto restored res3ondent=s )a3a)it$ to re1arr$ des3ite the 3au)it$ of eviden)e on this 1atter. Signi'cance o the $erti'cate o #egal $apacit% Petitioner ar#ues that the )erti9)ate of le#al )a3a)it$ re7uired +$ Arti)le 2' of the 8a1il$ Code was not su+1itted to#ether with the a33li)ation for a 1arria#e li)ense. A))ordin# to her, its a+sen)e is 3roof that res3ondent did not have le#al )a3a)it$ to re1arr$. The Court )lari9ed that the le#al )a3a)it$ to )ontra)t 1arria#e is deter1ined +$ the national law of the 3art$ )on)erned. The )erti9)ate 1entioned in Arti)le 2' of the 8a1il$ Code would have +een su)ient to esta+lish the le#al )a3a)it$ of res3ondent, had he dul$ 3resented it in )ourt. A dul$ authenti)ated and ad1itted )erti9)ate is 3ri1a fa)ie eviden)e of le#al )a3a)it$ to 1arr$ on the 3art of the alien a33li)ant for a 1arria#e li)ense. ased on the a+ove re)ords the Court )annot )on)lude that res3ondent, who was then a naturalied Australian )itien, was le#all$ )a3a)itated to 1arr$ 3etitioner on %anuar$ '2, '((. The )ourt a 7uo erred in 9ndin# that the divor)e de)ree i3so fa)to )lothed res3ondent with the le#al )a3a)it$ to re1arr$ without re7uirin# hi1 to addu)e su)ient eviden)e to show the Australian 3ersonal law #overnin# his status> or at the ver$ least, to 3rove his le#al )a3a)it$ to )ontra)t the se)ond 1arria#e. The Court neither #rants 3etitioner=s 3ra$er to de)lare her 1arria#e to res3ondent null and void on the #round of +i#a1$. After all, it 1a$ turn out that under Australian law, he was reall$ )a3a)itated to 1arr$ 3etitioner as a dire)t result of the divor)e de)ree. ;en)e, the 1ost and failin# in that, of de)larin# the 3arties 1arria#e void on the #round of +i#a1$, as a+ove dis)ussed. No )osts.
SO ORDERED.
