Garcia-Recio vs. Recio TITLE: Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A. Recio CITATION: GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 22 ! 3"" #CRA $3% FACTS: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in Malab Malabon, on, Rizal Rizal on March March , !"#. !"#. The$ The$ li%ed li%ed as husb husban and d and and wi&e wi&e in Aust Austral ralia. ia. 'owe%er, an Australian &amil$ court issued purportedl$ a decree o& di%orce, dissol%in( the marria(e o& Rederick and Editha on Ma$ ", !"!. )n *anuar$ +, !!, Rederick married -race *. -arcia where it was solemnized at )ur lad$ o& erpetual erpetual 'elp Church, Cabanatua Cabanatuan n Cit$. Since )ctober )ctober ++, !!/, the couple couple li%ed separatel$ separatel$ without prior prior 0udicial dissolution dissolution o& their marria(e. marria(e. As a matter o& &act, &act, while the$ were still in Australia, their con0u(al assets were di%ided on Ma$ 1, !!1, in accordance with their Statutor$ 2eclarations secured in Australia. -race &iled a Complaint &or 2eclaration o& 3ullit$ o& Marria(e on the (round o& bi(am$ on March 4, !!", claimin( that she learned onl$ in 3o%ember !!#, Rederick5s marria(e with Editha Samson.
6SS7E: 8hether the decree o& di%orce submitted b$ Rederick Recio is admissible as e%idence to pro%e his le(al capacit$ to marr$ petitioner and absol%ed him o& bi(am$.
'E92: The nullit$ o& Rederick5s marria(e with Editha as shown b$ the di%orce decree issued was was %alid %alid and and reco( reco(niz nized ed in the the hili hilipp ppine ines s since since the respo respond nden entt is a natur natural alize ized d Australian. Australian. 'owe%er, there is absolutel$ absolutel$ no e%idence that pro%es respondent5s respondent5s le(al capacit$ to marr$ petitioner petitioner thou(h thou(h the &ormer &ormer presented a di%orce di%orce decree. decree. The said decree, decree, bein( a &orei(n &orei(n documen documentt was inadmissible inadmissible to court court as e%idence e%idence primaril$ primaril$ because it was not authenticated b$ the consul embass$ o& the countr$ where it will be used.
7nder Sections + and +/ o& Rule 4+, a writin( or document ma$ be pro%en as a public or o&&icial record o& a &orei(n countr$ b$ either: ;< an o&&icial publication or ;+< a cop$ thereo& attested b$ the o&&icer ha%in( le(al custod$ o& the document. 6& the record is not kept in the hilippines, such cop$ must be: ;a< accompanied b$ a certi&icate issued b$ the proper diplomatic or consular o&&icer in the hilippine &orei(n ser%ice stationed in the &orei(n countr$ in which the record is kept and ;b< authenticated b$ the seal o& his o&&ice.
Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Re(ional Trial Court o& Cabanatuan Cit$ to recei%e or trial e%idence that will conclusi%el$ pro%e respondent5s le(al capacit$ to marr$ petitioner and thus &ree him on the (round o& bi(am$.
