VAN DORN vs. HON. ROMILLO and RICHARD UPTON G.R. No. L-68470
October 8, 1985
FACTS: Petitioner, Alice Van Dorn is a Filipino citizen while
private respondent, Richard Upton is a citizen of the U.S. They
were married in Hongkong in 1972, but established their residence
in the Philippines. In 1982, the parties were divorced in Nevada,
U.S. and the petitioner has re-married also in Nevada to Theodore
Van Dorn. In 1983, Richard filed a suit against Alice in RTC,
stating that Alices business (the Galleon Shop) is a conjugal
property. He is asking for an accounting of the business to be
rendered, and seeking to be declared with right to manage the
conjugal property. Alice moved to dismiss on the ground that the
cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce
proceedings before the Nevada Court where Richard had acknowledged
that he and Alice had no community property. The Court below denied
the MTD on the ground that the property is located in the
Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.
The denial is the subject of this Certiorari proceeding. ISSUES: 1.
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained abroad is valid and
should be recognized in our jurisdiction? 2. What is the effect of
the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal
property in the Philippines? RULING: 1. YES. A divorce decree
granted by a U.S. Court between a Filipina and her American husband
is binding on the American husband. The decree is therefore binding
upon Richard, being a citizen of the U.S. It is true that owing to
the nationality principle embodied in Art. 15 of the CC, 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 here in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the
divorce in Nevada released Richard from the marriage from the
standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves marriage.
2. An American granted absolute divorce in his country with his
Filipina wife is estopped from asserting his rights over property
allegedly held in the Philippines as conjugal property. Pursuant to
his national law, Richard is no longer the husband of Alice. He
would have no standing to sue in the case below as Alices husband
entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound
by the decision of his own countrys court, which validly exercised
jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he did not repudiate, he
is estopped by his own representation before said court from
asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. To maintain
that under our laws, Alice has to be considered still married to
Richard and still subject to a wifes obligation cannot be just.
Alice should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect
and fidelity, and render support to Richard. She should not be
discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are
to be served.
