Scribd
Upload
20 views2 pages

Bigamy Case: Garcia vs. Recio Ruling

The respondent was previously married to an Australian citizen and divorced in Australia. He then married the petitioner in the Philippines without registering the divorce. The court ruled the respondent did not have the legal capacity to marry the petitioner since he failed to prove his divorce was valid under Australian law.

Uploaded by

cheesekhate
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views2 pages

Bigamy Case: Garcia vs. Recio Ruling

The respondent was previously married to an Australian citizen and divorced in Australia. He then married the petitioner in the Philippines without registering the divorce. The court ruled the respondent did not have the legal capacity to marry the petitioner since he failed to prove his divorce was valid under Australian law.

Uploaded by

cheesekhate
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

138322 October 2, 2001

GRACE J. GARCIA (petitioner) vs. REDERICK A. RECIO (respondent)

FACTS: The respondent was married to an Australian citizen in 1987 and lived together as husband and
wife. Later on, they decided to dissolve their marriage. Subsequently, a decree of divorce was issued by
Australian family court.

Respondent became an Australian citizen and were married to the petitioner in Cabanatuan City,
Philippines. In their application for marriage license, the respondent was declared single and Filipino.
Petitioner then filed for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy. She claimed that she
just learned of respondent’s marriage with the Australian citizen 3 years after their marriage.

Lower court declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid
and recognized in the Philippines. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry the petitioner

RULING: Based on the first paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, marriages
solemnized abroad are governed by the law of the place where they were celebrated
(the lex loci celebrationis). In effect, the Code requires the presentation of the foreign
law to show the conformity of the marriage in question to the legal requirements of the
place where the marriage was performed. Therefore, before a foreign divorce 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.

In case at bar, the respondent failed to register the divorce decree in the Local Civil
registry of Cabanatuan.

SC conclude that the respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, do not
have the capacity to marry petitioner. They agree with petitioners contention that the
court a quo erred in finding that the divorce decree ipso facto clothed respondent with
the legal capacity to remarry without requiring him to adduce sufficient 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.

The case was remanded to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which
conclusively show respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner; and failing in that, of
declaring the parties marriage void on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed.

You might also like