PERSONS AND

FAMILIY RELATIONS
CASE REPORTING
LIST OF CASES:
• RECIO VS. RECIO
• ROEHR VS. RODRIGUEZ
•MORIGO VS. PEOPLE
RECIO VS. RECIO
G.R. No. 138322.
October 2, 2001
336 SCRA 437
 FACTS:
Respondent Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson,
an Australian citizen. They lived together as husband and wife in
Australia. On June 26, 1992, respondent became
an Australian citizen and was married again to petitioner Grace
Garcia-Recio, a Filipina on January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City.
 FACTS:
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. Respondent
allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married
her. On his Answer, Rederick contended that his first marriage was
validly dissolved; thus, he was legally capacitated to marry
Grace.
 FACTS:
On July 7, 1998 or about five years after the couple’s
wedding and while the suit for the declaration of nullity was
pending , respondent was able to secure a divorce decree
from a family court in Sydney, Australia because the
“marriage had irretrievably broken down.”
 FACTS:

The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage of

Rederick and Grace Recio dissolved on the ground that
the Australian divorce had ended the marriage of the
couple thus there was no more marital union to nullify or
annul.
 ISSUES:

1.) Whether or not the divorce between respondent

and Editha Samson was proven.

2.) Whether or not respondent was proven to be

legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
 RULING: 1ST ISSUE
• The Supreme Court ruled that the mere presentation of
the divorce decree of respondent’s marriage to Samson is insufficient.
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the
party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its
conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Furthermore,
the divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to
be an authentic one issued by an Australian family court. However,
appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the aforementioned rules
on evidence must be demonstrated.
 RULING: 2ND ISSUE
• Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:
• “1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes
absolute, commits the offence of bigamy.”
• This quotation supports the contention that the divorce obtained by
respondent may have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his
legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Hence, the
Court find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which inaccurately
assumed that the Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent’s
capacity to remarry despite the lack of evidence on this matter.
• The Court mentioned that they cannot grant petitioner’s prayer
to declare her marriage to respondent null and void because of the
question on latter’s legal capacity to marry.
ROEHR VS. RODRIGUEZ
G.R. NO 142820,
JUNE 30, 2003
404 SCRA 495
 FACTS:
• Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, married private
respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in
Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14,
1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union were born
Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine. Carmen filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage before the Makati Regional Trial
Court (RTC). Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied.
 FACTS:
• Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained a decree of divorce from the
Court of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese. Said decree
also provides that the parental custody of the children should
be vested to Wolfgang. Wolfgang filed another motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as a divorce decree had already
been promulgated, and said motion was granted by Public
Respondent RTC Judge Salonga.
 FACTS:
• Carmen filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a
prayer that the case proceed for the purpose of determining
the issues of custody of children and the distribution of the
properties between her and Wolfgang. Judge
Salonga partially set aside her previous order for the purpose
of tackling the issues of support and custody of their children.
 ISSUES:
• 1st Issue: W/N Judge Salonga was correct in granting a partial
motion for reconsideration.

• 2nd issue: W/N Judge Salonga's act was valid when she
assumed and retained jurisdiction as regards child custody
and support.
 RULING: 1ST ISSUE
• YES. A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not
yet attained finality, as in the case at bar.
The Supreme Court goes further to say that the court can modify or alter
a judgment even after the same has become executory.
 RULING: 2ND ISSUE
• As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other
countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction. But the legal effects
thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still be
determined by our courts.
MORIGO VS. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 145226
FEBRUARY 6, 2004
422 SCRA 376
 FACTS:
• Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol. They got married in
1990 with no actual marriage ceremony. Barrete went back to Canada for
work and in 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario Canada, which was
granted. In 1992, Morigo married Lumbago. He subsequently filed a complaint
for judicial declaration of nullity on the ground that there was no marriage
ceremony. Morigo was then charged with bigamy and moved for a suspension
of arrangement since the civil case pending posed a prejudicial question in the
bigamy case. Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with Barrete
was void ab initio. Petitioner contented he contracted second marriage in
good faith
 ISSUE:
• Whether or not Morigo must have filed declaration for
the nullity of his marriage with Barrete before his
second marriage in order to be free from the bigamy
case. (prejudicial question)
 RULING:
• Morigo’s Marriage with Barrete is void abinitio considering that
there was no actual marraige ceremony performed between them
by a solemnizing officer instead they just merely signed a marriage
contract. The petitioner does not need to file declaration of the
nullity of his marriage when he contracted his second marriage
with Lumbago. Hence, he did not commit bigamy as is acquitted in
the case filed.
Thank you!