In Redante Sarto v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Redante Sarto for bigamy, emphasizing the stringent requirements for recognizing foreign divorce decrees in the Philippines. The Court held that a mere certificate of divorce is insufficient to prove the termination of a prior marriage; instead, the actual divorce decree and proof of the relevant foreign law must be presented and authenticated according to Philippine rules of evidence. This decision underscores the principle that Philippine courts do not automatically recognize foreign judgments affecting marital status and that the party invoking the foreign divorce decree bears the burden of proving its validity and effect under the applicable foreign law. This ruling reinforces the state’s interest in protecting the institution of marriage and ensuring that individuals do not evade Philippine law by contracting marriages abroad and then seeking to dissolve them through foreign decrees without proper judicial recognition in the Philippines.

Second Marriage, First Divorce: When Foreign Judgments Clash with Philippine Law

Redante Sarto was charged with bigamy for marrying Fe R. Aguila while still legally married to Maria Socorro G. Negrete. The defense presented was that Maria Socorro had obtained a divorce in Canada before Redante’s marriage to Fe. However, the trial court and the Court of Appeals found Redante guilty, ruling that he failed to adequately prove the validity of the divorce under Canadian law. The Supreme Court then reviewed whether the lower courts erred in convicting Redante of bigamy, focusing on the evidentiary requirements for recognizing foreign divorce decrees in the Philippines. This case illustrates the challenges individuals face when navigating international family law and the necessity of complying with specific legal procedures to ensure that foreign judgments are recognized within the Philippine legal system.

The heart of the matter lies in the elements of bigamy as defined under Philippine law. According to Antone v. Beronilla, the elements are: first, the offender must be legally married; second, the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse is not presumed dead; third, the offender contracts a second marriage; and fourth, the second marriage meets all essential validity requirements. Here, Redante admitted to two marriages, but he claimed his first marriage was terminated by a divorce obtained abroad. This defense hinges on the recognition of the foreign divorce decree within the Philippine legal framework, specifically whether Redante successfully proved that the divorce was valid under Canadian law.

Building on this, Philippine courts require specific evidence to recognize a foreign judgment of divorce. As the Supreme Court emphasized, a divorce decree obtained abroad is a foreign judgment affecting marital status and does not have automatic effect in the Philippines. The pronouncement was in line with Fujiki v. Marinay, which provided the concept of foreign judgment. Recognition by Philippine courts is necessary before the effects of the divorce decree can be extended locally. This principle protects the sanctity of marriage under Philippine law and ensures that individuals cannot easily circumvent marital obligations by obtaining divorces in countries with more lenient laws.

To have a foreign divorce decree recognized, the party invoking it must prove it as a fact and demonstrate its conformity with the foreign law that allows it. The Supreme Court has consistently held that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws, as mentioned in Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals. This means that the party relying on the foreign law must present evidence of its existence and content. This requirement is crucial because it enables Philippine courts to assess whether the divorce was validly obtained under the laws of the country where it was granted, ensuring that the divorce is not contrary to Philippine public policy.

To prove the divorce and the foreign law allowing it, Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court must be complied with. These rules specify that the divorce decree and foreign law can be proven through an official publication or copies attested by the officer with legal custody of the documents. If the office is in a foreign country, the copies must be accompanied by a certificate from the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in that country, authenticated by the seal of their office. This authentication process ensures that the documents are genuine and that the divorce was officially recognized in the foreign jurisdiction.

In Redante’s case, he failed to meet these evidentiary requirements. The defense presented only a certificate of divorce, not the divorce decree itself. The Supreme Court deemed this insufficient. As stated in the decision, “First, the certificate of divorce is not the divorce decree required by the rules and jurisprudence… Second, assuming the certificate of divorce may be considered as the divorce decree, it was not accompanied by a certification issued by the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in Canada, as required under Section 24 of Rule 132. Lastly, no copy of the alleged Canadian law was presented by the defense.” Because Redante did not provide the actual divorce decree, authenticated as required, or present evidence of the relevant Canadian law, he failed to prove that the divorce was validly obtained.

Further compounding the issue, the type of divorce obtained by Maria Socorro—whether absolute or limited—remained unclear. The Supreme Court noted that without proper evidence, it could not determine whether the divorce capacitated Maria Socorro to remarry, which is a crucial factor in determining Redante’s capacity to contract a subsequent marriage. The court emphasized that, because Redante failed to prove his capacity to remarry, his liability for bigamy was firmly established.

The OSG’s argument that Redante’s failure to provide evidence of the date Maria Socorro acquired Canadian citizenship was the sole reason for his conviction was also refuted by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that the trial court’s decision was based on the lack of competent evidence regarding the divorce decree and the governing national law, not merely the absence of evidence about the effectivity date of Maria Socorro’s naturalization. Even if the Court were to consider the belatedly submitted photocopy of Maria Socorro’s citizenship certificate, it would not change the outcome because Redante still failed to prove the existence of the divorce and its validity prior to his second marriage.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Redante Sarto v. People of the Philippines serves as a critical reminder of the evidentiary requirements for recognizing foreign divorce decrees in bigamy cases. Individuals who contract marriages abroad and later seek to dissolve them through foreign decrees must ensure that they comply with Philippine rules of evidence to prove the validity of the divorce and their capacity to remarry. This case underscores the importance of obtaining proper legal advice when dealing with international family law issues and the potential consequences of failing to meet the strict evidentiary standards set by Philippine courts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Redante Sarto could be convicted of bigamy, given his defense that his first marriage was dissolved by a divorce obtained in Canada. The Supreme Court focused on whether Redante adequately proved the validity of the foreign divorce decree under Philippine law.
What are the elements of bigamy under Philippine law?	The elements of bigamy are: (1) the offender is legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved; (3) the offender contracts a second marriage; and (4) the second marriage meets all the essential requisites for validity. All these elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.
What evidence is required to prove a foreign divorce decree in the Philippines?	To prove a foreign divorce decree, the party must present the divorce decree itself, authenticated by the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer in the foreign country. Additionally, the foreign law allowing the divorce must be proven through an official publication or a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the document.
Why was the certificate of divorce presented by Redante deemed insufficient?	The certificate of divorce was deemed insufficient because it was not the actual divorce decree and was not accompanied by a certification from the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer. Furthermore, Redante failed to present a copy of the Canadian law that allowed the divorce.
What is the effect of a foreign divorce decree in the Philippines?	A foreign divorce decree does not have automatic effect in the Philippines and requires recognition by Philippine courts. This recognition ensures that the divorce was validly obtained under the laws of the country where it was granted and is not contrary to Philippine public policy.
What is the significance of Article 26 of the Family Code in this case?	Article 26 of the Family Code allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if their alien spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad. However, the divorce decree must still be recognized by Philippine courts, and the party invoking it must prove its validity and the capacity of the alien spouse to remarry under their national law.
Who bears the burden of proving the validity of a foreign divorce decree?	The party invoking the foreign divorce decree bears the burden of proving its validity. This includes presenting the divorce decree, authenticating it as required, and providing evidence of the foreign law allowing the divorce.
Can Philippine courts take judicial notice of foreign laws?	No, Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. This means that the party relying on a foreign law must present evidence of its existence and content for it to be considered by the court.

The case of Redante Sarto v. People of the Philippines clarifies the stringent requirements for recognizing foreign divorce decrees in the context of bigamy charges. It underscores the importance of proper documentation and authentication when seeking to rely on foreign judgments within the Philippine legal system. This ruling serves as a guide for individuals navigating international family law issues and highlights the necessity of seeking competent legal advice to ensure compliance with all applicable legal requirements.

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 v. People, G.R. No. 206284, February 28, 2018