Van Dorn vs Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139, No. L-68470 October 8, 1985
ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., et al, respondents.
G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Doctrine
Absolute divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized in the Philippines if valid under the national law of such an alien. Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139, No. L-68470 October 8, 1985
Facts:
The Petitioner ALICE REYES VAN DORN is a Filipino Citizen, while the private respondent RICHARD UPTON is a citizen of the United States of America; they got married and blessed 2 children, they lived in the Philippines.
In 1982 that the parties divorce in Nevada, US and Alice Reyes, the petitioner has re married also in Nevada to Theodore Van Dorn.
On June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in Civil Case on Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in Pasay City,, stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop, for short), is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had “no community property” as of June 11, 1982.
The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss in the mentioned case on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.
Respondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy; that the acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannot, especially if the same is contrary to public policy, divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether or not, the absolute divorce obtained abroad may be recognized in the Philippines.
Held:
Yes. It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code,
“Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.”
only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.
Read Full Cases
G.R. No. L-68470 (lawphil.net)
G.R. No. L-68470 – ALICE REYES VAN DORN vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR. (chanrobles.com)
