GARCIA VS RECIO

Facts:Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy alleging respondent was not legally capacitated to marry her on January 12, 1994 because of his prior subsisting marriage to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen. Respondent claimed that petitioner knew of his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution. He had obtained adivorce decreeas proof of his legal capacity to marry petitioner in 1994.

While the suit for the declaration of nullity was still pending, respondent, who had become a naturalized Australian citizen in 1992, secured adivorce decreein Sydney, Australia for the dissolution of his marriage with petitioner on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. This was recognized by the trial court in rendering its assailed decision that deemed the marriage between respondent and petitioner ended not on the basis of respondents alleged lack of legal capacity to remarry but on the basis of thedivorce decree(Australian divorce) obtained by respondent.

Petitioner argues that thedivorce decreemay only be given recognition in this jurisdiction upon proof of existence of (1) the foreign law allowing absolute divorce, and (2) the allegeddivorce decreeitself.

Issues:(1) Whether or not the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven; and

(2) Whether or not respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner.

Held:(1)Yes. Thedivorce decreehas to be admitted in evidence with theregistrationrequirementsunder Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code in order to prove the divorce as a fact and prove its conformity to the foreign law allowing it for our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. However, compliance with theregistrationrequirementsis no longer binding to respondent for he has acquired Australian Citizenship and therefore, he is no longer bound byPhilippinepersonal laws. Respondent submitted thedivorce decreeand was rendered admissible by the trial court as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Autralia and accorded weight by the judge.

(2) No. The court held that respondents presentation of a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree-a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce showed that the divorce obtained may have been restricted; it did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to national law. Respondent also failed to submit a Certificate of Legal Capacity together with theapplicationfor a marriage license required by Article 21 of the Family Code which would have been admitted as a prima facie evidence of his legal capacity to marry. The Court finds no absolute evidence that proves that respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994.