G.R. No. 167109 ; February 6, 2007
FELICITAS AMOR-CATALAN, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, ORLANDO B. CATALAN and MEROPE E. BRAGANZA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando Catalan in 1950. They later migrated to the United States and allegedly became naturalized American citizens. After 38 years, they allegedly divorced in April 1988. In June 1988, Orlando married respondent Merope Braganza in the Philippines. Felicitas filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to declare this subsequent marriage void on the ground of bigamy, alleging Merope had a prior subsisting marriage. The RTC granted the petition, declared the marriage void, and awarded damages.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision. The appellate court dismissed the case, holding that since Felicitas and Orlando were allegedly American citizens who had obtained a divorce, Felicitas was no longer Orlando’s spouse and thus lacked the legal personality or standing to question his subsequent marriage. Felicitas filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan has the legal standing to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between respondents on the ground of bigamy.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of standing could not be resolved without first determining the factual issues of naturalization and divorce. The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in basing its conclusion on the mere allegations in the complaint and unsubstantiated testimony. It is a settled rule that the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it; allegation is not evidence. For a foreign divorce decree to be recognized in the Philippines, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity with the foreign law allowing it. The foreign law itself must be proved, as Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of it.
In this case, the records were bereft of competent evidence, such as the divorce decree or the pertinent foreign law, to prove that Felicitas and Orlando were naturalized American citizens and that a valid divorce was obtained. Consequently, the Court of Appeals had no basis to conclude that Felicitas lost her standing as an injured spouse. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence on these pivotal factual matters. The trial court was directed to determine if a valid divorce was obtained and, if so, whether the governing foreign law allowed Orlando to remarry. Only upon such proof could the issue of Felicitas’s legal personality to sue be conclusively resolved.