The Supreme Court ruled that in bigamy cases where the accused claims a prior foreign divorce, they must strictly prove the divorce’s validity and its recognition under Philippine law. This means presenting the actual divorce decree, proving the foreign law that allows it, and demonstrating that the foreign law does not contradict Philippine public policy. The accused must also establish that they were capacitated to remarry under the foreign law at the time of the second marriage. This decision emphasizes that a mere certificate of divorce is insufficient and that the burden of proof lies with the accused to demonstrate the termination of the first marriage.

When a Second Marriage Hinges on Foreign Divorce: The Sarto Bigamy Case

The case of Redante Sarto y Misalucha v. People of the Philippines revolves around Redante Sarto, who was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was allegedly still in effect. Redante’s defense rested on the claim that his first marriage to Maria Socorro G. Negrete had been legally dissolved by a divorce obtained in Canada. The core legal question was whether Redante adequately proved the validity and effectivity of the Canadian divorce to justify his second marriage to Fe R. Aguila. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both found Redante guilty, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court.

The prosecution presented evidence of two marriage contracts: one between Redante and Maria Socorro in 1984, and another between Redante and Fe in 1998. Redante admitted to both marriages but argued that the Canadian divorce terminated his first marriage. He presented a Certificate of Divorce issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, stating that the divorce took effect on November 1, 1988. However, the RTC and CA found this insufficient, noting that Redante failed to provide the actual divorce decree or proof of Canadian law regarding divorce.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the elements of bigamy. According to Antone v. Beronilla, these elements are: (1) a legally valid first marriage; (2) the first marriage not being legally dissolved or the absent spouse not being presumed dead; (3) the offender contracting a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second marriage having all the essential requisites for validity. Redante’s defense centered on the second element, arguing that his first marriage was dissolved by the Canadian divorce. However, the burden of proving this dissolution rested squarely on him, as the one asserting the fact.

The Court highlighted that a foreign divorce decree is a foreign judgment affecting marital status. In the Philippines, foreign judgments do not have automatic effect; they require recognition by Philippine courts before their effects can be extended locally, per Fujiki v. Marinay. This recognition doesn’t necessarily require a separate petition; it can be invoked as part of a claim or defense in a case. However, the party invoking the divorce must prove it as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it, because Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws, as stated in Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals.

To prove the divorce and the foreign law, the party must present copies of the divorce decree and relevant foreign law, complying with Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. These rules allow proof through official publications or attested copies, certified by the officer having legal custody. If the office is in a foreign country, the copies must be accompanied by a certificate from the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer and authenticated by the seal of their office, as cited in Vda. de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee and San Luiz v. San Luiz.

In Redante’s case, the Supreme Court found that he failed to meet these requirements. The Certificate of Divorce was deemed insufficient as it was not the actual divorce decree rendered by the Canadian court. Even if considered as such, it lacked the required certification from the Philippine consular officer in Canada. Critically, Redante also failed to present a copy of the Canadian law on divorce, making it impossible to determine whether the divorce was valid under Canadian law and whether it capacitated him to remarry.

The Court distinguished the case from Republic v. Orbecido, where the legislative intent behind Article 26 of the Family Code was discussed. While Article 26 aims to prevent absurd situations where a Filipino spouse remains married to an alien spouse who is no longer married under their own laws, it does not negate the requirement of proving the foreign divorce and the foreign law allowing it. Even though Maria Socorro had remarried in Canada, this did not automatically validate Redante’s second marriage in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court clarified that the RTC’s conviction was not solely based on the lack of evidence regarding the date Maria Socorro acquired Canadian citizenship, as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had argued. The RTC’s decision was primarily due to the lack of competent evidence regarding the divorce decree and the governing foreign law. Thus, even considering the belatedly submitted photocopy of Maria Socorro’s citizenship certificate, it would not have changed the outcome because Redante still failed to prove the existence and validity of the divorce.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the strict requirements for recognizing foreign divorce decrees in the Philippines, particularly in bigamy cases. The accused must present competent evidence of the divorce decree and the foreign law, properly authenticated, to prove that the first marriage was validly terminated before the second marriage was contracted. Failure to do so will result in a conviction for bigamy.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Redante Sarto adequately proved the validity of a Canadian divorce decree to defend himself against a bigamy charge for contracting a second marriage.
What are the elements of bigamy in the Philippines?	The elements of bigamy are: (1) a legally valid first marriage; (2) the first marriage not being legally dissolved; (3) contracting a second marriage; and (4) the second marriage being valid in all essential requisites.
What is required to prove a foreign divorce in the Philippines?	To prove a foreign divorce, one must present the divorce decree and proof of the foreign law allowing it, authenticated according to Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
What kind of document is sufficient to prove a foreign divorce?	A mere certificate of divorce is generally insufficient. The actual divorce decree issued by the foreign court is required.
Does the remarriage of the alien spouse affect the Filipino spouse’s marital status?	While Article 26 of the Family Code aims to address situations where the alien spouse remarries, it does not automatically validate the Filipino spouse’s subsequent marriage without proper proof of the divorce.
Who has the burden of proof in a bigamy case when a foreign divorce is claimed?	The person claiming the foreign divorce has the burden of proving its validity and recognition under Philippine law.
Why was the Certificate of Divorce insufficient in this case?	The Certificate of Divorce was insufficient because it was not the actual divorce decree and it lacked the required certification from the Philippine consular officer in Canada.
What is the effect of failing to prove the foreign law on divorce?	Failing to prove the foreign law makes it impossible to determine whether the divorce was valid under that law and whether it capacitated the party to remarry.
Can Philippine courts take judicial notice of foreign laws?	No, Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws; they must be proven as a matter of fact.

In conclusion, the Redante Sarto case reinforces the stringent requirements for recognizing foreign divorce decrees in the Philippines, especially in the context of bigamy charges. It serves as a reminder that individuals must diligently comply with evidentiary rules to prove the validity of foreign divorces and ensure their capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Redante Sarto y Misalucha, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent., G.R. No. 206284, February 28, 2018