Case Title: GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, vs. REDERICK A.

RECIO,
respondent. G.R. No. 138322 | 2001-10-02

Doctrine: Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A
marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad,
because of Articles 15 [Nationality Principle] and 17 of the Civil Code. On the other hand, the
concept of "limited divorce" is akin to legal separation under the Family Code, which allows
the spouses to live separately and separate their properties but does not sever the marriage
bond. In a legal separation, the spouses remain married under the eyes of the law.

Facts: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in
Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987. They lived as husband and wife in Australia. However, an
Australian family court issued purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of
Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989. On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia
where it was solemnized at Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Since
October 22, 1995, the couple lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their
marriage. As a matter of fact, while they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were
divided on May 16, 1996, in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in
Australia. Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of
bigamy on March 3, 1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997, Rederick’s
marriage with Editha Samson.

Issue: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick Recio is admissible as evidence to
prove his legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

Ruling: The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued was
valid and recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized Australian.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that proves respondent’s legal capacity to marry
petitioner though the former presented a divorce decree. The said decree, being a foreign
document was inadmissible to court as evidence primarily because it was not authenticated
by the consul/ embassy of the country where it will be used.

Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or
official record of a foreign country by either:

(1) an official publication or

(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the
record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:

(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in

the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept
and

(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan
City to receive or trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondent’s legal capacity
to marry petitioner and thus free him on the ground of bigamy.