spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the provisions of the Civil Code; (3) that the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.[26] Redante admitted that he had contracted two marriages. He, however, put forth the defense of the termination of his first marriage as a result of the divorce obtained abroad by his alien spouse. It is a fundamental principle in this jurisdiction that the burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. [27] Since the divorce was a defense raised by Redante, it is incumbent upon him to show that it was validly obtained in accordance with Maria Socorro's country's national law.[28] Stated differently, Redante has the burden of proving the termination of the first marriage prior to the celebration of the second.[29] Redante failed to prove his capacity to contract a subsequent marriage. 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.[30] Recognition of the divorce decree, however, need not be obtained in a separate petition filed solely for that purpose. Philippine courts may recognize the foreign divorce decree when such was invoked by a party as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.[31] 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. Proving the foreign law under which the divorce was secured is mandatory considering that Philippine courts cannot and could not be expected to take judicial notice of foreign laws.[32] For the purpose of establishing divorce as a fact, a copy of the divorce decree itself must be presented and admitted in evidence. This is in consonance with the rule that a foreign judgment may be given presumptive evidentiary value only after it is presented and admitted in evidence. [33] In particular, to prove the divorce and the foreign law allowing it, the party invoking them must present copies thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. [34] Pursuant to these rules, the divorce decree and foreign law may be proven through (1) an official publication or (2) or copies thereof attested to by the officer having legal custody of said documents. If the office which has custody is in a foreign country, the copies of said documents must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept; and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.[35] Applying the foregoing, the Court is convinced that Redante failed to prove the existence of the divorce as a fact or that it was validly obtained prior to the celebration of his subsequent marriage to Fe. Aside from the testimonies of Redante and Maria Socorro, the only piece of evidence presented by the defense to prove the divorce, is the certificate of divorce allegedly issued by the registrar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia on 14 January 2008. Said certificate provides: In the Supreme Court of British Columbia Certificate of Divorce This is to certify that Ma. Socorro Negrete SARTO and Redante M SARTO who were married at ANGONO, RIZAL, PHILIPPINES on August 31, 1984 were divorced under the Divorce Act (Canada) by an order of this Court which took effect and dissolved the marriage on November 1, 1988. Given under my hand and the Seal of this Court January 14, 2008 (SGD.) __________________ REGISTRAR 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