366 scra 437
Foreign Law – Divorce
Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson an Australian citizen, on March 1, 1987. On May 18, 1989 a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage was issued by the Australian Family Court. On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen. Subsequently, respondent entered into marriage with petitioner a Filipina on January 12, 1994. Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy. Responded contended that his prior marriage had been validly dissolved by a decree of divorce obtained in Australia thus he is legally capacitated to marry petitioner. The trial court rendered the decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent dissolved and both parties can now remarry. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce obtained by respondent in Australia ipso facto capacitated him to remarry.
HELD: The SC remanded the case to the court a quo to receive evidence. Based on the records, the court cannot conclude that respondent who was then a naturalized Australian citizen was legally capacitated to marry petitioner. Neither can the court grant petitioner’s prayer to declare her marriage null and void on the ground of bigamy. After all it may turn out that under Australian law he was really capacitated to marry petitioner as result of the divorce decree. The SC laid down the following basic legal principles; a marriage between two Filipino cannot be dissolved even by a divorce decree obtained abroad because of Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code.
3 Responses to Garcia vs Recio
Leave a Reply
Inside Uber Digests
[...] Read digest here. [...]
[...] READ THE REST OF THE DIGEST HERE Share this:FacebookDiggStumbleUponTwitterEmailPrintRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]
As this "story" does not state where Roderick Recio (NOT Nick Recio) married his Filipina "wife" and where this "wife" filled her patition, I'll presume that such marriage was performed in the Philippines and that the wife filed her case here. Therefore, the Phil. SC is right in stating that "a marriage between two FILIPINOs cannot be dissolved even by a divorce decree obtained abroad….." obviously because WE still do not have DIVORCE here. And as usual, the laguage barrier makes this ruling in this case questionable. Does the SC still believe that Roderick's citizenship is still a Filipino despite the fact that "In June 26, 1992, Roderick BECAME an AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN"? Moreover, was not Roderick's divorce decree obtained in 1989 PRIOR to his marriage to the Filipina in 1994? Therefore, the Filipina may have already known that Roderick was a Divorcee when she married him. My question here is: Can a partner in Crime sue his/her Partner for the crime they committed?