Case Digest for Article 15: General Register No. 138322, 02 October 2001

General Register No. 138322, 02 October 2001

Grace J. Gracia, a.k.a. Grace J. Gracia – Recio, Petitioner

versus

Rederick A. Recio, Respondent

I. Facts

On 01 March 1987, Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino citizen, married Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal. They lived together as a couple in Australia till their divorce was granted by an Australian family court on 18 May 1989. By 26 June 1992, the respondent became an Australian citizen.

On 12 January 1994, the petitioner, a Filipina, and respondent married in a church wedding at Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. By 22 October 1995, the petitioner and the respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. On 16 May 1996, their conjugal assets were divided as per their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.

On 03 March 1998, the petitioner filed a Compliant for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy. She only learned of the respondent’s marriage to Editha Samson only in November 1997.

The Cabanatuan City Regional Trial Court issued a decision on 07 January 1999 and an order on 24 March 1999 granting the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent.

The petitioner filed a motion of reconsideration at the Supreme Court.

II. Issue

Whether the divorce degree given by Australian court to the respondent is valid as evidence to prove his legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

III. Held

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.

Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, states the following conditions in accepting official records:

Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with acertificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)

Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)

Thus, the Supreme Court send back 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.