1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the courts cannot grant the same; second, consistent with Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code, the marital bond between two (2) Filipino citizens cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad; third, an absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple who are both aliens may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws; and fourth, in mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. [Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis] Accordingly, the petition for annulment initiated by Angelita fails scrutiny through the lens of the Nationality Principle. Firstly, what governs the marriage of the parties is German, not Philippine, law, and this rendered it incumbent upon Angelita to allege and prove the applicable German law. We reiterate that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws; hence, the existence and contents of such laws are regarded as questions of fact, and, as such, must be alleged and proved like any other disputed fact.[9] Proof of the relevant German law may consist of any of the following, namely: (1) official publications of the law; or (2) copy attested to by the officer having legal custody of the foreign law. If the official record is not kept in the Philippines, the copy 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.[10] Angelita did not comply with the requirements for pleading and proof of the relevant German law. And, secondly, Angelita overlooked that German and Philippine laws on annulment of marriage might not be the same. In other words, the remedy of annulment of the marriage due to psychological incapacity afforded by Article 36 of the Family Code might not be available for her. In the absence of a showing of her right to this remedy in accordance with German law, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. II. Assuming the remedy was proper, the petitioner did not prove the respondent's psychological incapacity Even if we were now to adhere to the concept of processual presumption,[11] and assume that the German law was similar to the Philippine law as to allow the action under Article 36 of the Family Code to be brought by one against the other party herein, we would still affirm the CA's dismissal of the petition brought under Article 36 of the Family Code. Notable from the RTC's disquisition is the fact that the psychiatrists found that both parties had suffered from anti-social behavior that became the basis for the trial court's conclusion that they had been both psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential martial obligations. Therein lay the reason why we must affirm the CA. Jurisprudentially speaking, psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates an incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65677 5/10