G.R. No. 37048, March 7, 1933
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Plaintiff Manuela Barreto Gonzalez and defendant Augusto Gonzalez are citizens of the Philippines who were married in the City of Manila. The husband left the Philippines and secured in Nevada an absolute divorce. He subsequently remarried. Shortly after his return to the Philippines, his wife brought an action in the CFI Manila requesting that the decree of divorce be ratified. The Supreme Court ruled that at all times the matrimonial domicile of this couple has been within the Philippine Islands and the residence acquired in the State of Nevada by the husband for the purpose of securing a divorce was not a bona fide residence and did not confer jurisdiction upon the court of that State to dissolve the bonds of matrimony.
FACTS:
Plaintiff Manuela Barreto Gonzalez and defendant Augusto Gonzalez are citizens of the Philippine Islands and at present, residents of the City of Manila. They were married in the City of Manila on January 19, 1919, and lived together as man and wife in the Philippine Islands until the Spring of 1926. They voluntarily separated and since that time have not lived together as man and wife. The husband left the Islands, took himself to Reno, Nevada, and secured in that jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion, which decree was dated November 28, 1927. Shortly thereafter the defendant moved to California and returned to these Islands in August 1928, where he has since remained. On the same date that he secured the divorce in Nevada he went through the forms of marriage with another citizen of these Islands. Defendant, after his departure from these Islands, reduced the amount he had agreed to pay monthly for the support of his wife and four minor children and has not made the payments fixed in the Reno divorce as alimony. Shortly after his return his wife brought action in the Court of First Instance of Manila requesting that the courts of the Philippine Islands confirm and ratify the decree of divorce issued by the courts of the State of Nevada.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained from Nevada by the husband can be enforced in the Philippines – NO
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The entire conduct of the parties from the time of their separation until the case was submitted to this court, in which they all prayed that the Reno divorce be ratified and confirmed, clearly indicates a purpose to circumvent the laws of the Philippine Islands regarding divorce and to secure for themselves a change of status for reasons and under conditions not authorized by our law. At all times the matrimonial domicile of this couple has been within the Philippine Islands and the residence acquired in the State of Nevada by the husband for the purpose of securing a divorce was not a bona fide residence and did not confer jurisdiction upon the court of that State to dissolve the bonds of matrimony in which he had entered in 1919. Litigants by mutual agreement can not compel the courts to approve of their own actions or permit the personal relations of the citizens of these Islands to be affected by decrees of foreign courts in a manner which our Government believes is contrary to public order and good morals.