G.R. No. 25577, March 3, 1927
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Afife Abdo Cheyban Gorayeb has obtained a judgment requiring the defendant (who is also her husband) Nadjib Tannus Hashim, to pay to her a monthly stipend by way of support. The plaintiff filed a motion to cite defendant in contempt when he failed to pay the pension per month which was awarded to her. In response to this motion, the defendant pleaded the decree of divorce obtained by him from the Nevada court, claiming that said decree had the effect of dissolving the bonds of matrimony between himself and the plaintiff and of relieving him from all liability to pay the pension claimed. The trial court absolved him from the charge of contempt ruling that his defense was put forth in good faith but the trial court also held that he should continue the payment of pension to the plaintiff notwithstanding the decree of divorce he obtained. The Supreme Court ruled that the procuring of the divorce in Nevada was a mere device on the part of the defendant to rid himself of the obligation created by the judgment of the Philippine court and that his temporary sojourn in the State of Nevada was a mere ruse unaccompanied by any genuine intention on his part to acquire a legal domicile in that State. Thus, the divorce granted by the Nevada court cannot be recognized by the courts of this country.
FACTS:
The plaintiff in Civil Case No. 19115, Afife Abdo Cheyban Gorayeb, has obtained a judgment requiring the defendant (who is also her husband) Nadjib Tannus Hashim, to pay her a monthly stipend by way of support. While the question of the defendant’s civil liability for the support claimed by the plaintiff was still undetermined, the defendant sought refuge in the State of Nevada; and, on December 1, 1924, there obtained a decree of divorce from the plaintiff in the court of the Second Judicial District of the State of Nevada. He then returned to the Philippine Islands, and on October 20, 1925, the plaintiff filed a motion in civil case No. 19115, alleging that the defendant had failed to pay the pension of P500 per month, which had been awarded to her in the decision of December 24, 1923, and praying that he be adjudged to be in contempt of court and that he be fined and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and until he should comply with the order. In response to this motion the defendant pleaded the decree of divorce obtained by him from the Nevada court, claiming that said decree had the effect of dissolving the bonds of matrimony between himself and the plaintiff and of relieving him from all liability to pay the pension claimed.
Upon hearing the cause the trial court found that, while, as a matter of fact, the defendant was in arrears in the payment of the pension, nevertheless the defense asserted by him had been put forth in good faith. His Honor therefore absolved the defendant from the contempt charge, with costs de oficio. At the same time, it was declared that the civil obligation created by the previous orders of the court remained in full force and effect, notwithstanding the decree of divorce upon which the defendant relied, and he was ordered to continue the payment of the pension at the reduced rate of P100 per month. From so much of this order as declares the defendant civilly liable for the pension claimed by the plaintiff the defendant appealed, and it is this appeal that is now before us.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the husband is obliged to give support to the wife despite a divorce decree issued in Nevada – YES because the divorce decree was ineffective
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The procuring of the divorce in Nevada was a mere device on the part of the defendant to rid himself of the obligation created by the judgment of the Philippine court and that his temporary sojourn in the State of Nevada was a mere ruse unaccompanied by any genuine intention on his part to acquire a legal domicile in that State. This being true, the divorce granted by the Nevada court cannot be recognized by the courts of this country.
A divorce granted in one State may be called in question in the courts of another and its validity determined upon the evidence relating to domicile of the parties to the divorce. This undoubtedly involves a collateral attack upon the decree of divorce; but, as has been said by the Supreme Court of the United States, it is now too late to deny the right collaterally to impeach a decree of divorce in the courts of another State by proof that the court granting the divorce had no jurisdiction, even though the record purports to show jurisdiction and the appearance of the parties.
For reasons already stated, the decree itself is of no force in this jurisdiction. It supplies therefore no justification for the defendant’s failure to pay alimony.