Article Article 15: Van Dorn vsRonilloJr vsRonilloJr 130 SCRA 139
Alice Reyes Van Dorn , petitioner, vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City, and Richard Upton, respondents No. L-68470 October 8, 1985 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to set aside the Orders of RTC Branch CX which denied petitioners Motion to Dismiss the case, and Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order 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 and they established their residence in the Philippines where they begot two children. The parties were divorced in Nevada, United States in 1982; after which, the petitioner has remarried also in Nevada to a Theodore Van Dorn. On June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in Civil Case No. 1075-P of the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in Pasay City, stating that petitioner's business (the Galleon Shop) in Ermita, Manila is conjugal property of the parties. The private respondentprays that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of the business, and that the former be given the right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the pretext that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings beforethe Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "nocommunity property" as of June 11, 1982. The trial court denied the Motion to Dismissthecase on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines;thus, theDivorce Decree before the Nevada Court has no bearing in the case. The petitionercontested that the private respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because of therepresentation he made in the divorce proceedings before the American Court that they had no community o property, that the Galleon Shop was not established through conjugal funds and that respondentsclaim is barred by prior judgment. The respondent argued that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over theprohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy. policy. Moreover, Moreover, he claims that the acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannotdivest Philippine Courts to entertain matters within itsjurisdiction. Issue:
Whether or not the Nevada divorce of the parties is binding in the Philippines and that parties have no conjugal property in the Philippines. Held:
Petition is granted, and respondent Judge is ordered to dismiss the Complaint. The Nevada divorce of the parties is valid and indeed binding in the Philippines and they have no conjugal property. Ratio Decidendi
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. In the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, onlyPhilippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being also considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens who obtained divorce abroad, may be recognized in the Philippines provided they are valid accordingto 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 the national law of private respondent, he is no longer the husband of petitioner. He has no standing to sue as petitioner's husband entitled to exercisecontrol over conjugal assets.He is bound by the previous decision of his own country's Court; and is estoppedby his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugalproperty.
