GR 206284; (February, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206284 February 28, 2018
REDANTE SARTO Y MISALUCHA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Redante Sarto was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Fe R. Aguila on December 29, 1998, while his first marriage to Maria Socorro G. Negrete, solemnized on August 31, 1984, remained undissolved. Redante admitted to both marriages but interposed the defense that his first marriage had been legally dissolved by a divorce decree obtained by Maria Socorro in British Columbia, Canada, on November 1, 1988. He presented a Certificate of Divorce issued in 2008 and testimonies, including that of Maria Socorro, who stated she had acquired Canadian citizenship in 1988 and later remarried in Canada in 2000. The prosecution presented the marriage contracts and adopted the Certificate of Divorce to highlight it was only secured in 2008, long after the second marriage.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Redante Sarto’s conviction for bigamy despite his claim that a foreign divorce decree had dissolved his first marriage prior to his second marriage.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the petitioner’s failure to prove the foreign divorce’s validity and its legal effect on his capacity to remarry under Philippine law. For a foreign divorce to be recognized, the party invoking it must prove both the divorce decree’s authenticity and the foreign spouse’s nationality at the time of the divorce to establish the foreign court’s jurisdiction. Here, Redante only presented a Certificate of Divorce, not the divorce decree itself, which is insufficient to prove its authenticity and terms. Crucially, he failed to substantiate Maria Socorro’s Canadian citizenship at the precise time of the divorce in 1988; her acquisition of citizenship was alleged but not competently evidenced.
Furthermore, even assuming a valid foreign divorce was obtained by the alien spouse, it must still be proven to capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry. The Court reiterated that a foreign divorce decree obtained by the alien spouse is recognized in the Philippines, thereby dissolving the marriage and allowing the Filipino spouse to remarry. However, the burden of proof lies with the party invoking the divorce. Redante did not present adequate evidence, such as the divorce decree or official documents proving Maria Socorro’s citizenship status in 1988. Consequently, the first marriage was presumed subsisting when he contracted the second marriage, fulfilling all elements of bigamy. The defense of divorce remains a matter of evidence, and his failure to discharge this burden justified his conviction.