G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States. They married in Hong Kong but private respondent subsequently obtained a divorce decree in Nevada. Private respondent sued petitioner for his share in her Galleon Shop. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that private respondent is bound by his representation in the divorce proceedings that they have no community of property but private respondent alleges that the divorce decree has no effect in the Philippines because of the country’s public policy. The trial court dismissed petitioner’s motion, hence, she brought the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. Private respondent is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate. Thus, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.
FACTS:
Petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972. After the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines. They begot two children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively. The parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982 and petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. Private respondent filed suit against petitioner stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop) is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case, contending that respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings before the American Court that they had no community of property. Respondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss of petitioner on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained in Nevada for a marriage in Hong Kong between an American and a Filipino is effective in the Philippines – YES; thus, the husband no longer has the right to manage the conjugal properties
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had obtained jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before the Court during the trial of the case and over private respondent who authorized his attorneys in the divorce case. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen.
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.
In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.
To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife’s obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.