(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the

Grace J. Garcia-Recio vs Rederick A. Recio document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:

V. (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular

officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in
GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002 366 SCRA 437 which the record is kept and

FACTS: (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

 Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian
Citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987. They lived as husband and
wife in Australia. However, an Australian family court issued purportedly a
decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18,
1989.
Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of
Cabanatuan City to receive or trial evidence that will conclusively prove
respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner and thus free him on the
ground of bigamy.

 On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia where it was

solemnized at Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Since
October 22, 1995, the couple lived separately without prior judicial
dissolution of their marriage. As a matter of fact, while they were still in
Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in accordance
with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.

 Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground

of bigamy on March 3, 1998, claiming that she learned only in November
1997, Rederick’s marriage with Editha Samson.

ISSUE: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick Recio is admissible

as evidence to prove his legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of
bigamy.

HELD:

 The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce

decree issued was valid and recognized in the Philippines since the
respondent is a naturalized Australian. However, there is absolutely no
evidence that proves respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner though
the former presented a divorce decree. The said decree, being a foreign
document was inadmissible to court as evidence primarily because it was not
authenticated by the consul/ embassy of the country where it will be used.

 Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven

as a public or official record of a foreign country by either:

(1) an official publication or