garcia v recio

2
ARTICLE 3: Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance Garcia v. Recio G. R. No. 138322 Oct. 2, 2001 FACTS Rederick Recio, a Filipino, married an Australian citizen named Editha Samson in 1987. Two years later a decree of divorce was released by the Australian government. On June 26, 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen and married a certain Grace Garcia in1994 in Cabanatuan City with the former declaring that he was single and Filipino. Garcia filed a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of bigamy alleging that Recio had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her and only had knowledge of it in 1997. Recio countered Garcia’s claim, asserting that he disclosed the previous marriage to her in 1993. Moreover, he contended that his first marriage had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in 1989 making him legally capacitated to marry. ISSUE Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorce decree obtained in Australia by Recio ipso facto terminated his first marriage to Samson thereby capacitating him to contract a second marriage with Garcia. HELD The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree obtained by Recio does not ipso facto terminate his first marriage to Samson on the account that presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Article 15 and 17 of the Civil Code establish the rule that a marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a

Upload: boom-manuel-bayani

Post on 06-Sep-2015

233 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Persons case digest

TRANSCRIPT

ARTICLE 3: Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance

Garcia v. RecioG. R. No. 138322 Oct. 2, 2001

FACTSRederick Recio, a Filipino, married an Australian citizen named Editha Samson in 1987. Two years later a decree of divorce was released by the Australian government.On June 26, 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen and married a certain Grace Garcia in1994 in Cabanatuan City with the former declaring that he was single and Filipino. Garcia filed a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of bigamy alleging that Recio had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her and only had knowledge of it in 1997.Recio countered Garcias claim, asserting that he disclosed the previous marriage to her in 1993. Moreover, he contended that his first marriage had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in 1989 making him legally capacitated to marry.

ISSUEWhether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorce decree obtained in Australia by Recio ipso facto terminated his first marriage to Samson thereby capacitating him to contract a second marriage with Garcia.

HELDThe Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree obtained by Recio does not ipso facto terminate his first marriage to Samson on the account that presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Article 15 and 17 of the Civil Code establish the rule that a marriagebetween two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws. The Court highlights that before a foreign divorce decree 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.