Garcia vs Recio (G.R. No.

138322)
Posted: August 8, 2011 in Civil Law
Tags: Divorce

0
Foreign Law – Divorce
FACTS: 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.

Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad vs Court of Appeals

361 SCRA 489 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Foreign Judgments – How
Assailed
In 1985, the High Court of Malaysia ordered the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC) to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. This was
the result of a recovery suit filed by Asiavest against PNCC in Malaysia for PNCC’s failure
to complete a construction project there despite due payment from Asiavest. Despite
demand, PNCC failed to comply with the judgment in Malaysia hence Asiavest filed a
complaint for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling against PNCC in the Philippines. The
case was filed with the Pasig RTC which eventually denied the complaint. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Asiavest appealed. In its defense, PNCC alleged that the foreign judgment cannot be
enforced here because of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or
fraud, and there is a clear mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed the arguments of PNCC
on the ground that PNCC’s counsel participated in all the proceedings in the Malaysian
Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should be enforced against PNCC in
the Philippines.
HELD: Yes. PNCC failed to prove and substantiate its bare allegations of want of
jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion and/or fraud, and mistake of fact. On the contrary,
Asiavest was able to present evidence as to the validity of the proceedings that took place
in Malaysia. Asiavest presented the certified and authenticated copies of the judgment and
the order issued by the Malaysian Court. It also presented correspondences between
Asiavest’s lawyers and PNCC’s lawyers in and out of court which belied PNCC’s allegation
that the Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCC’s allegation of fraud is not
sufficient too, further, it never invoked the same in the Malaysian Court.
The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party must present evidence of
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or
fact. Otherwise, the judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so long as it was duly
certified and authenticated. In this case, PNCC failed to present the required evidence.