Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr.

ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner,
vs.
HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTON respondents.

G.R. No. L-­68470
October 8, 1985

FACTS:

Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972. In 1982 they were divorced in Nevada, USA. Petitioner re-­married in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

In 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in the RTC of Pasay City stating that petitioner Alice’s business in Ermita, Manila, the Galleon Shop, is their conjugal property 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”. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.

Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings. Respondent on the other hand maintain that,the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.

ISSUE:

What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines?

HELD:

The divorce decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union.

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, 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. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.

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.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.