G.R. No. 206284, February 28, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Redante and Maria Socorro were married on 31 August 1984 but sometime thereafter, Maria Socorro left for Canada to work as a nurse and while in Canada, she acquired Canadian citizenship. Maria Socorro then filed for divorce in British Columbia, Canada, to sever her marital ties with Redante which was eventually granted by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Sometime in February 1998, Redante met Fe to whom he admitted that he was previously married to Maria Socorro who, however, divorced him. Despite this admission, their romance blossomed and culminated in their marriage on 29 December 1998. However after learning of Redante and Maria Socorro’s meeting and believing that they had reconciled, Fe decided to leave their conjugal home. Then, Fe filed a complaint for bigamy against Redante. In its judgment, the RTC found Redante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy. The trial court ratiocinated that Redante’s conviction is the only reasonable conclusion for the case because of his failure to present competent evidence proving the alleged divorce decree; his failure to establish the naturalization of Maria Socorro; and his admission that he did not seek judicial recognition of the alleged divorce decree. In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s Judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that before the divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove it as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. However, in this case, Redante failed to prove the existence of the divorce as a fact or that it was validly obtained prior to the celebration of his subsequent marriage to Fe. As such, Redante failed to prove his defense that he had the capacity to remarry when he contracted a subsequent marriage to Fe. His liability for bigamy is, therefore, now beyond question.
FACTS:
Redante and Maria Socorro, both natives of Buhi, Camarines Sur, were married on 31 August 1984 in a ceremony held in Angono, Rizal. Sometime thereafter, Maria Socorro left for Canada to work as a nurse. While in Canada, she applied for Canadian citizenship. The application was eventually granted and Ma. Socorro acquired Canadian citizenship on 1 April 1988. Maria Socorro then filed for divorce in British Columbia, Canada, to sever her marital ties with Redante. The divorce was eventually granted by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on 1 November 1988. Sometime in February 1998, Redante met Fe to whom he admitted that he was previously married to Maria Socorro who, however, divorced him. Despite this admission, their romance blossomed and culminated in their marriage on 29 December 1998 at the Peñafrancia Basilica Minore in Naga City. Their relationship, however, turned sour when Ma. Socorro returned to the Philippines and met with Redante to persuade him to allow their daughter to apply for Canadian citizenship. After learning of Redante and Maria Socorro’s meeting and believing that they had reconciled, Fe decided to leave their conjugal home on 31 May 2007.
On 4 June 2007, Fe filed a complaint for bigamy against Redante. In its judgment, the RTC found Redante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy. The trial court ratiocinated that Redante’s conviction is the only reasonable conclusion for the case because of his failure to present competent evidence proving the alleged divorce decree; his failure to establish the naturalization of Maria Socorro; and his admission that he did not seek judicial recognition of the alleged divorce decree. In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s Judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is no longer guilty of bigamy since the first marriage was dissolved by divorce obtained abroad – NO. Divorce was not sufficiently proven.
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
A divorce decree obtained abroad by an alien spouse is a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage. As in any other foreign judgment, a divorce decree does not have an automatic effect in the Philippines. Consequently, recognition by Philippine courts may be required before the effects of a divorce decree could be extended in this jurisdiction. Recognition of the divorce decree, however, need not be obtained in a separate petition led solely for that purpose. Philippine courts may recognize the foreign divorce decree when such was invoked by a party as an integral aspect of his claim or defense. Before the divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove it as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Proving the foreign law under which the divorce was secured is mandatory considering that Philippine courts cannot and could not be expected to take judicial notice of foreign laws. For the purpose of establishing divorce as a fact, a copy of the divorce decree itself must be presented and admitted in evidence. This is in consonance with the rule that a foreign judgment may be given presumptive evidentiary value only after it is presented and admitted in evidence.
Applying the foregoing, the Court is convinced that Redante failed to prove the existence of the divorce as a fact or that it was validly obtained prior to the celebration of his subsequent marriage to Fe. Aside from the testimonies of Redante and Maria Socorro, the only piece of evidence presented by the defense to prove the divorce, is the certificate of divorce allegedly issued by the registrar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia on 14 January 2008. This certificate of divorce, however, is utterly insufficient to rebut the charge against Redante. First, the certificate of divorce is not the divorce decree required by the rules and jurisprudence. As discussed previously, the divorce decree required to prove the fact of divorce is the judgment itself as rendered by the foreign court and not a mere certification. Second, assuming the certificate of divorce may be considered as the divorce decree, it was not accompanied by a certification issued by the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in Canada, as required under Section 24 of Rule 132. Lastly, no copy of the alleged Canadian law was presented by the defense. Thus, it could not be reasonably determined whether the subject divorce decree was in accord with Maria Socorro’s national law. Further, since neither the divorce decree nor the alleged Canadian law was satisfactorily demonstrated, the type of divorce supposedly secured by Maria Socorro — whether an absolute divorce which terminates the marriage or a limited divorce which merely suspends it — and whether such divorce capacitated her to remarry could not also be ascertained. As such, Redante failed to prove his defense that he had the capacity to remarry when he contracted a subsequent marriage to Fe. His liability for bigamy is, therefore, now beyond question.