G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Hamburg, Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. On August 28, 1996, private respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Meanwhile, petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese, promulgated on December 16, 1997. In view of said decree, petitioner filed a Second Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or suit as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage of petitioner and private respondent. The judge issued an order granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss. But upon Motion for Reconsideration, the respondent judge issued the assailed order partially setting aside her previous order for the purpose of tackling the issues of property relations of the spouses as well as support and custody of their children. Petitioner hereby ascribes lack of jurisdiction of the trial court and grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge. The Supreme Court ruled that a judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality. In this case, the divorce decree issued by the German court has not been challenged by either of the parties. However, the legal effects of divorce, e.g., on custody, care and support of the children, must still be determined by our courts. In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment as res judicata with regard to the rights of petitioner to have parental custody of their two children. Absent any finding in the divorce decree that private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the children, the trial court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine the issue of parental custody, care, support and education mindful of the best interests of the children. However, respondent judge has no basis to assert jurisdiction in this case to resolve the property relations between the spouses which was a matter no longer deemed in controversy.
FACTS:
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen and resident of Germany, married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Hamburg, Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union were born Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine on November 18, 1981 and October 25, 1987, respectively.
On August 28, 1996, private respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied by the trial court; the motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals but the appellate court denied the petition and remanded the case to the RTC. Meanwhile, petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese, promulgated on December 16, 1997. In view of said decree, petitioner filed a Second Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or suit as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage of petitioner and private respondent.
On July 14, 1999, Judge Guevara-Salonga issued an order granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Private respondent filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer that the case proceed for the purpose of determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of the properties between petitioner and private respondent. The respondent judge issued the assailed order partially setting aside her order dated for the purpose of tackling the issues of property relations of the spouses as well as support and custody of their children. Petitioner filed a timely motion for reconsideration which was denied by respondent judge in an order. Petitioner hereby ascribes lack of jurisdiction of the trial court and grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce decree’s award of custody of children to petitioner should be enforced – NO
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
(1) Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing her order dated September 30, 1999, which partially modified her order dated July 14, 1999
It is clear from the foregoing rules that a judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality. Considering that private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, the trial court’s decision of July 14, 1999 can still be modified.
(2) Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her discretion when she assumed and retained jurisdiction over the present case despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from a German court.
In Garcia v. Recio, Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., and Llorente v. Court of Appeals, we consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. Relevant to the present case is Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, where this Court specifically recognized the validity of a divorce obtained by a German citizen in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. We held in Pilapil that a foreign divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons.
In this case, the divorce decree issued by the German court has not been challenged by either of the parties. In fact, save for the issue of parental custody, even the trial court recognized said decree to be valid and binding, thereby endowing private respondent the capacity to remarry. Thus, the present controversy mainly relates to the award of the custody of their two children, Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine, to petitioner.
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care and support of the children, must still be determined by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner by the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court
In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment as res judicata with regard to the rights of petitioner to have parental custody of their two children. The proceedings in the German court were summary. As to what was the extent of private respondent’s participation in the proceedings in the German court, the records remain unclear. The divorce decree itself states that neither has she commented on the proceedings nor has she given her opinion to the Social Services Office. Unlike petitioner who was represented by two lawyers, private respondent had no counsel to assist her in said proceedings. More importantly, the divorce judgment was issued to petitioner by virtue of the German Civil Code provision to the effect that when a couple lived separately for three years, the marriage is deemed irrefutably dissolved. The decree did not touch on the issue as to who the offending spouse was. Absent any finding that private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the children, the trial court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine the issue of parental custody, care, support and education mindful of the best interests of the children.
In sum, we find that respondent judge may proceed to determine the issue regarding the custody of the two children born of the union between petitioner and private respondent. Private respondent erred, however, in claiming cognizance to settle the matter of property relations of the parties, which is not at issue. Given the factual admission by the parties in their pleadings that there is no property to be accounted for, respondent judge has no basis to assert jurisdiction in this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in controversy.