Facts:
Article 26; The
respondent, Rederick Recio, a Filipino was married to Editha Samson, an
Australian citizen, in Rizal in 1987. They lived together as husband and wife
in Australia. In 1989, the
Australian family court issued a decree of divorce supposedly dissolving the
marriage. In 1992, respondent acquired Australian citizenship. In 1994, he
married Grace Garcia, a Filipina, herein petitioner, inCabanatuan City. In their application for
marriage license, respondent was declared as “single” and “Filipino.” Since
October 1995, they lived separately, and in 1996 while in Australia, their conjugal assets were
divided. In 1998, petitioner filed Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage on the ground of bigamy, claiming that she learned of the respondent’s
former marriage only in November. On the other hand, respondent claims that he
told petitioner of his prior marriage in 1993, before they were married.
Respondent also contended that his first marriage was dissolved by a divorce a
decree obtained in Australia in 1989 and hence, he was legally
capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. The trial court declared that the
first marriage was dissolved on the ground of the divorce issued in Australia as valid and recognized in the Philippines. Hence, this petition was
forwarded before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not
respondent has legal capacity to marry Grace Garcia.
Ruling:
In mixed marriages
involving a Filipino and a foreigner, 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.” A
divorce obtained abroad by two aliens, may be recognized in thePhilippines,
provided it is consistent with their respective laws. Therefore, before our
courts can recognize a foreign divorce, the party pleading it must prove the
divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing
it. In this case, the divorce decree between the respondent and
Samson appears to be authentic, issued by an
Australian family court. Although, appearance is not sufficient, and compliance
with the rules on evidence regarding alleged foreign laws must be demonstrated,
the decree was admitted on account of petitioner’s failure to object properly
because he objected to the fact that it was not registered in the Local Civil
Registry of Cabanatuan City, not to its admissibility. Respondent claims that
the Australian divorce decree, which was validly admitted as evidence,
adequately established his legal capacity to marry under Australian law. Even
after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes,
still restrict remarriage. Respondent also failed to produce sufficient
evidence showing the foreign law governing his status. Together with other
evidences submitted, they don’t absolutely establish his legal capacity to
remarry.
No comments:
Post a Comment