G.R. No. L-6768, July 31, 1954
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Plaintiff Salud and Alfredo Javier had their marriage solemnized by Judge Nable of the Municipal Court of Manila. Alfredo left for the United States to serve as part of the US Navy, but as their relation became strained, he brought an action for divorce against Salud before the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA. Notwithstanding Salud’s contention regarding the court’s jurisdiction, Alfredo was able to secure a divorce decree. He married for the second time but his American wife divorced him. When he returned to the Philippines, he married for the third time. Plaintiff Salud filed a case against him for bigamy but the case was dismissed on the premise that Alfredo contracted the subsequent marriage in good faith; however, Alfredo was adjudged to give montly allowance to Salud and to pay attorney’s fees. Thus, Alfredo appealed, contending that the divorce decree should be given legal effect. However, the Supreme Court ruled that where a local resident went to a foreign country, not with the intention of permanently residing there, or of considering that place as his permanent abode, but for the sole purpose of obtaining divorce from his wife, such residence is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the foreign court.
FACTS:
On November 19, 1937, plaintiff Salud R. Arca and defendant Alfredo Javier had their marriage solemnized by Judge Mariano Nable of the Municipal Court of Manila. Sometime in 1938, defendant Alfredo Javier left for the United States on board a ship of the United States Navy. Salud chose to live with defendant’s parents at Naic, Cavite. But for certain incompatibility of character, plaintiff Salud had found it necessary to leave the defendant’s parents’ abode and transfer her residence to Cavite — her native place. Since then their relation became strained such that on August 13, 1940 defendant Alfredo Javier brought an action for divorce against Salud before the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA. Notwithstanding Salud’s averments in her answer, contesting the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, judgment was rendered decreeing dissolution of their marriage and granting Alfredo a decree of divorce. After securing a divorce from plaintiff, defendant Alfredo Javier married Thelma Francis, an American citizen. In 1949, Thelma obtained a divorce from him. After his arrival in the Philippines, Alfredo married Maria Odvina before Judge Natividad Almeda-Lopez of the Municipal Court of Manila on April 19, 1950. At the instance of plaintiff Salud R. Arca an information for bigamy was filed by the City Fiscal of Manila on July 25, 1950 against defendant Alfredo Javier with the Court of First Instance of Manila. Defendant Alfredo Javier was acquitted of the charge of Bigamy, predicated on the proposition that the marriage of defendant Alfredo Javier with Maria Odvina was made in all good faith and in the honest belief that his marriage with plaintiff Salud R. Arca had been legally dissolved by the decree of divorce obtained by him. However, the Court of First Instance of Cavite ordered him to give a monthly allowance of P60 to plaintiffs beginning March 31, 1953, and to pay them attorney’s fees in the amount of P150.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained from Alabama by the husband is valid in the Philippines – NO
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The Court ruled that one of the essential conditions for the validity of a decree of divorce is that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and in order that this may be acquired, plaintiff must be domiciled in good faith in the State in which it is granted. It is true that Salud R. Arca filed an answer in the divorce case instituted at the Mobile County in view of the summons served upon her in this jurisdiction, but this action cannot be interpreted as placing her under the jurisdiction of the court because its only purpose was to impugn the claim of appellant that his domicile or legal residence at that time was Mobile County, and to show that the ground of desertion imputed to her was baseless and false. Such answer should be considered as a special appearance the purpose of which is to impugn the jurisdiction of the court over the Case.
It cannot be said that the Mobile County Court of Alabama had acquired jurisdiction over the case for the simple reason that at the time it was filed appellant’s legal residence was then in the Philippines. He could not have acquired legal residence or domicile at Mobile County when he moved to that place in 1938 because at that time he was still in the service of the U.S. Navy and merely rented a room where he used to stay during his occasional shore leave for shift duty. That he never intended to live there permanently is shown by the fact that after his marriage to Thelma Francis in 1941, he moved to New York where he bought a house and a lot, and after his divorce from Thelma in 1949 and his retirement from the U.S. Navy, he returned to the Philippines and married Maria Odvina of Naic, Cavite, where he lived ever since. It may therefore be said that appellant went to Mobile County, not with the intention of permanently residing there, or of considering that place as his permanent abode, but for the sole purpose of obtaining divorce from his wife. Such residence is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court.