Sarto vs. People

A foreign divorce decree invoked by an accused to defeat a charge of bigamy must be proved as a fact by presenting the divorce decree itself—not a mere certificate—and must be accompanied by proof of the foreign law allowing divorce, all authenticated pursuant to Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; otherwise, the accused fails to discharge the burden of proving that the first marriage was legally dissolved before the second marriage was contracted.

Redante Sarto y Misalucha and Maria Socorro G. Negrete, both natives of Buhi, Camarines Sur, were married on 31 August 1984 in Angono, Rizal. Maria Socorro subsequently left for Canada, worked as a nurse, and acquired Canadian citizenship on 1 April 1988. She filed for divorce in British Columbia, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted a divorce effective 1 November 1988. In 1992, Maria Socorro returned to the Philippines; persuaded by relatives, the couple attempted reconciliation, which resulted in the birth of a daughter on 8 March 1993, but ultimately failed. In February 1998, Redante met Fe R. Aguila and disclosed his prior marriage but claimed he had been divorced. Redante and Fe married on 29 December 1998 in Naga City and had two children. The marriage deteriorated when, in 2007, Maria Socorro returned and met Redante regarding their daughter’s Canadian citizenship; Fe, believing they had reconciled, left the conjugal home and filed a criminal complaint for bigamy.

• First Marriage and Divorce: Redante and Maria Socorro G. Negrete, both from Buhi, Camarines Sur, were married on 31 August 1984 in Angono, Rizal. Maria Socorro later moved to Canada, worked as a nurse, and acquired Canadian citizenship on 1 April 1988. She filed for divorce in British Columbia, Canada; the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued an order dissolving the marriage effective 1 November 1988.
• Attempted Reconciliation: In 1992, Maria Socorro returned to the Philippines for a vacation. After persuasion from Redante’s family, the couple attempted to reconcile, which led to the birth of their daughter on 8 March 1993 in Mandaluyong City. The reconciliation eventually failed.
• Second Marriage: In February 1998, Redante met private complainant Fe R. Aguila. He disclosed his prior marriage but claimed that Maria Socorro had divorced him. Their relationship culminated in marriage on 29 December 1998 at the Peñafrancia Basilica Minore in Naga City. The couple established a conjugal home in Pasay City and had two children.
• Breakdown of the Second Marriage and Criminal Complaint: The relationship between Redante and Fe soured when Maria Socorro returned to the Philippines and met with Redante to arrange for their daughter’s Canadian citizenship. Fe, believing that Redante had reconciled with Maria Socorro, left the conjugal home on 31 May 2007 and filed a sworn criminal complaint for bigamy on 4 June 2007.
• Prosecution’s Evidence: The prosecution presented the marriage contracts for both the first and second marriages. It also adopted the Certificate of Divorce—issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on 14 January 2008—as a prosecution exhibit to show the date the certificate was procured, not to prove the fact of divorce.
• Defense Evidence: Redante and Maria Socorro testified that a divorce had been obtained in Canada effective 1 November 1988. The defense offered one documentary exhibit: a “Certificate of Divorce” dated 14 January 2008, issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, certifying that the marriage was dissolved by an order of that court that took effect on 1 November 1988. Maria Socorro also testified that she remarried a Canadian national, Douglas Alexander Campbell, on 5 August 2000 in British Columbia. No copy of the divorce decree itself and no copy of the Canadian law on divorce were presented.
• Trial and Appellate Findings: The RTC found that Redante failed to present competent evidence of the divorce decree and the foreign law, failed to prove when Maria Socorro acquired Canadian citizenship, and admitted he had not sought judicial recognition of the divorce. The CA affirmed, holding that even if the Certificate of Divorce were authentic, it was insufficient because the divorce decree itself was not presented and the court could not determine whether the divorce was absolute and capacitated the spouse to remarry.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Divorce: Petitioner maintained that the Certificate of Divorce and the testimonies of himself and Maria Socorro sufficiently proved that the first marriage had been dissolved by a valid foreign divorce obtained by the alien spouse, thereby negating the element that the first marriage had not been legally dissolved.
• Applicability of Article 26 of the Family Code: Petitioner invoked the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code and Republic v. Orbecido, arguing that the legislative intent to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to an alien spouse who is no longer married under her national law should allow the Filipino spouse to remarry, and that the foreign divorce therefore absolved him of criminal liability for bigamy.

• Acquittal Based on Substantial Justice: Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, advocated for petitioner’s acquittal. The OSG contended that the RTC’s conviction was based solely on the petitioner’s failure to adduce evidence of the exact date of Maria Socorro’s Canadian citizenship. The OSG submitted that a photocopy of her citizenship certificate—belatedly attached to the appellant’s brief—showed citizenship as of 1 April 1988, thereby validating the divorce decree that took effect on 1 November 1988. The OSG argued that substantial rights should prevail over procedural technicalities and that the evidence established the dissolution of the first marriage.

• Burden of Proving Termination of the First Marriage: Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proving that his first marriage had been legally dissolved by a foreign divorce, thereby negating an essential element of bigamy, by presenting a Certificate of Divorce and testimonial evidence, or whether the law requires presentation of the divorce decree itself and proof of the foreign law pursuant to Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

• Burden of Proving Termination of the First Marriage: The conviction was affirmed. The burden of proving the termination of the first marriage rested upon the accused who raised the foreign divorce as a defense. To discharge that burden, the accused was required to prove the divorce both as a fact and as a valid act under the national law of the alien spouse. A foreign divorce decree is a foreign judgment relating to status and does not have automatic effect in the Philippines; it must be presented and proved in accordance with the Rules of Court. The “Certificate of Divorce” presented was not the divorce decree itself—i.e., the actual judgment of the foreign court—but merely a certification. Even if it were considered the decree, it lacked the authentication certificate of the Philippine consular or diplomatic officer stationed in Canada, as mandated by Section 24, Rule 132. Moreover, no copy of the Canadian law governing divorce was introduced, making it impossible to ascertain whether the divorce was absolute or merely a limited divorce that suspends the marriage, or whether it capacitated Maria Socorro to remarry. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish that he had the legal capacity to contract the subsequent marriage, and all elements of bigamy were proven by the prosecution.

• Proof of a Foreign Divorce Decree as a Defense to Bigamy — A party invoking a foreign divorce decree bears the burden of proving its existence and validity. The divorce must be proven as a fact by presenting the foreign court’s judgment itself, not a mere certificate or certification. Additionally, the party must demonstrate the foreign law under which the divorce was obtained, because Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. Compliance with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court is mandatory: the decree and the foreign law must be proved through an official publication or through copies attested by the custodian and authenticated by a Philippine consular or diplomatic officer.
• Recognition of Foreign Judgments on Marital Status — A foreign divorce decree is a foreign judgment. It does not produce automatic effects in the Philippines. While recognition need not be sought in a separate proceeding and may be raised as an integral aspect of a claim or defense in an existing action, the decree must nevertheless be proved and its conformity to the foreign law established before Philippine courts may give it effect.
• Elements of Bigamy and Burden of Proof — The elements of bigamy are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse cannot yet be presumed dead; (3) the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. Where the accused admits the two marriages but invokes a foreign divorce, the burden shifts to the accused to prove the dissolution of the first marriage.

• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”
• “In Orbecido, as in Redante’s case, the alien spouse divorced her Filipino spouse and remarried another. … [T]his Court set aside said decision by the trial court after finding that the records were bereft of competent evidence concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of the alien spouse.”

• Antone v. Beronilla, 652 Phil. 151 (2010) — Followed, for the elements of the crime of bigamy.
• Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723 (2001) — Applied, for the rule that the burden of proof of a foreign divorce lies with the party invoking it, and that the type of divorce (absolute or limited) must be established.
• Vda. de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee, 681 Phil. 493 (2012) — Applied, requiring strict compliance with Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 for proving foreign judgments and foreign laws.
• Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, 391 Phil. 648 (2000) — Applied, for the principle that the party invoking a divorce decree must prove the termination of the prior marriage.
• Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524 (2013) — Applied, reiterating that a foreign divorce decree does not have automatic effect and may require judicial recognition.
• Van Dorn v. Romillo, 223 Phil. 357 (1985); Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 642 Phil. 420 (2010); Noveras v. Noveras, 741 Phil. 670 (2014) — Applied, for the rule that recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be obtained as an integral part of a claim or defense without a separate proceeding.
• Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 568 (2007) — Applied, for the rule that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.
• Republic v. Orbecido, 509 Phil. 108 (2005) — Distinguished; invoked by petitioner but applied to support the requirement of competent proof of the divorce decree and naturalization.

• Article 349, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes bigamy. Applied as the basis for conviction after the prosecution established the essential elements.
• Article 26, paragraph 2, Family Code — Provides that where a marriage between a Filipino and an alien is validly dissolved by a divorce obtained abroad capacitating the alien spouse to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Invoked by petitioner but held inapplicable due to failure to prove the foreign divorce decree and foreign law.
• Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Govern the proof of official records and foreign judgments. Applied to require authentication of the divorce decree by a Philippine consular officer and presentation of the foreign law.

Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Associate Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.