G.R. No. 34259, March 21, 1931
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
E. Randolph Hix and Annie Cousins were married in Shanghai in China. Annie instituted an action in CFI Manila to compel her husband to provide adequate support for herself and for her son. Judgment was rendered in her favor which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Hix filed a complaint for divorce with the Circuit Court of Randolph County, West Virginia. Having procured the divorce, Hix returned to Manila in 1927, where he continued to live and engaged in business up to the time of his death in 1929. The petitioner, Annie Cousins Hix, appealed from the order issued by the CFI Manila in the course of the intestate proceedings of E. Randolph Hix. The lower court ruled that the divorce procured by Hix was valid in this jurisdiction and thus she is not entitled to pension. The Supreme Court ruled that since E. Randolph Hix was not a bona fide resident of the State of West Virginia, the divorce decree he obtained from the Circuit Court of Randolph County, is null and void, said court having failed to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. Moreover, the summons by publication in a complaint for divorce does not confer jurisdiction upon the court over the person of the wife when she has not entered an appearance in the case. The decree of divorce was also impeached on the ground of fraud due to the false allegations made by Hix.
FACTS:
While E. Randolph Hix was living in Manila in 1912, he met the appellant and married her in Shanghai, China, on or about June 24, 1913 and returned to Manila where they established their domicile. A son was born of this union in Boston, Massachusetts, on July 1, 1915, named Preston Randolph Hix. On December 7, 1922, the appellant instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against her husband, E. Randolph Hix, for the purpose of compelling him to provide adequate support for herself and her son, Preston Randolph Hix. The trial court adjudicated the case in her favor and ordered the defendant E. Randolph Hix to pay her the sum of P500 in advance on or before the 5th day of each month for the maintenance of herself and her son. The case was appealed to this court and on February 27, 1924, the judgment of the court below was affirmed.
In the month of May, 1925, Hix filed a complaint for a divorce with the Circuit Court of Randolph County, West Virginia. As the appellant was not a resident of the State of West Virginia, she was summoned upon the complaint for divorce by publication, and not having entered an appearance in the case, either personally or by counsel within the term fixed, the Circuit Court of Randolph County, West Virginia, rendered judgment against her in 1925 declaring her marriage with the plaintiff dissolved. Having procured the divorce, E. Randolph Hix returned to Manila in 1927, where he continued to live and engaged in business up to the time of his death in 1929. The petitioner, Annie Cousins Hix, appeals from the order issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila in the course of the intestate proceedings of E. Randolph Hix which ruled that the divorce procured by Hix was valid in this jurisdiction and thus she is not entitled to pension.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the decree of divorce issued by the Circuit Court of Randolph County, West Virginia, is null and void – YES
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
One of the conditions for the validity of a decree of absolute divorce is that the court granting it has acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter, and to this end the plaintiff must be domiciled in good faith, and for the length of time fixed by the law, in the state in which it was granted. Although the opponent and appellee attempted to show that E. Randolph Hix went to West Virginia with the intention of residing there permanently, as alleged in the complaint for divorce, such an intention was contradicted by the fact that before leaving the City of Manila, he did not liquidate his business, but placed it under the management of said opponent, and once having obtained his divorce, he returned to the City of Manila to take up his residence and to continue his aforesaid business, and that his purpose in going to West Virginia was to obtain a divorce.
This ruling has not been weakened in the present case by the fact that E. Randolph Hix was a citizen of the United States and of the State of West Virginia, since it is not the citizenship of the plaintiff for divorce which confers jurisdiction upon a court, but his legal residence within the State where he applies for a divorce.
Since E. Randolph Hix was not a bona fide resident of the State of West Virginia, the divorce decree he obtained from the Circuit Court of Randolph County, is null and void, said court having failed to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. But even if his residence had been taken up in good faith and the court had acquired jurisdiction to take cognizance of the divorce suit, the decree issued in his favor is not binding upon the appellant; for the matrimonial domicile of the spouses being the City of Manila, and no new domicile having been acquired in West Virginia, the summons made by publication, she not having entered an appearance in the case, either personally or by counsel, did not confer jurisdiction upon said court over her person.
The divorce may also be impeached by evidence of fraud, according to section 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure because of his allegations in the complaint, being false and which tended to deceive and did in fact deceive the aforesaid Circuit Court of Randolph County in West Virginia into granting the decree of divorce applied for. Had he alleged in his complaint that his wife lived apart from him by mutual consent, as was a fact, said court would not have granted the divorce.