Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GARCIA v RECIO
G.R. No. 138322. October 2, 2001
TIMELINE
March 1, 1987
- Rederick Recio (Filipino) married Editha
Samson (Australian). The marriage took
place in the Philippines (Malabon, Rizal).
- The spouses lived together in Australia.
May 18, 1989
- Australian family court dissolved the
marriage through a decree of divorce.
Allowing both parties to remarry.
June 26, 1992
- Rederick Recio became an AUS citizen.
January 12, 1994
- Grace Garcia (PET) married Rederick Recio
(RES) in Cabanatuan City.
October 22, 1995
- Garcia and Recio lived separately w/o prior
judicial dissolution of their marriage.
May 16, 1996
- Their conjugal assets were divided while
still in AUS
November, 1997
- Garcia claimed that she learned of
respondents marriage to Editha Samson.
March 3, 1998
- Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage on the ground of
bigamy1.
*** Recio had revealed to Garcia his prior marriage
and its subsequent dissolution; that his first
marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly
dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia
in 1989
July 7, 1998
- (while the suit for the declaration of
nullity was pending ) Recio was able to
secure a divorce decree from a family
court in Sydney, Australia because the
marriage had irretrievably broken down.
RECIO: prayed that the Complaint be dismissed on
the ground that it stated no cause of action.
TRIAL COURT RULING:
- Marriage is dissolved on the ground that
the divorce issued in Australia was valid
and recognized in the Philippines.
- Decision is based on the divorce decree
obtained by respondent.
- The Australian divorce had ended the
marriage; thus, there was no more
marital union to nullify or annul.
MAIN ISSUES:
1. W/N the divorce between respondent and
Editha Samson was proven.
2. W/N the respondent was proven to be
legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
SUB ISSUES:
1. W/N the trial court gravely erred in finding
that the divorce decree obtained in Australia
by the respondent ipso facto2 terminated his
first marriage to Editha Samson.
2. W/N Recio has the legal capacity to contract
a second marriage with the Garcia.
3. W/N the trial court seriously erred in the
application of Art. 26 of the Family Code in
this case.
4. W/N the trial court patently and grievously
erred in disregarding Arts. 11, 13, 21, 35, 40,
52 and 53 of the Family Code as the
applicable provisions in this case.
5. W/N the trial court gravely erred in
pronouncing that the divorce decree
obtained by the respondent in Australia ipso
facto capacitated the parties to remarry,
without first securing a recognition of the
judgment granting the divorce decree before
our courts.
COURT RULING:
2 Ipso facto by the fact