CASE DIGEST : Alice Reyes Van Dorn v. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr. and Richard Upton G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985 First Division — Melencio-Herrera, J.

 

FACTS

Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino citizen, and Richard Upton, an American citizen, were married in Hong Kong in 1972. After their marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines and had two children, born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975. The parties were subsequently divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982. After the divorce, Van Dorn remarried in Nevada to Theodore Van Dorn.

On June 8, 1983, Richard Upton filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City against Van Dorn. He alleged that Van Dorn's business in Ermita, Manila, known as the Galleon Shop, was conjugal property of the parties. He sought an accounting of the business and asked that he be declared to have the right to manage the alleged conjugal property. Van Dorn moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Upton's claim was barred by the previous judgment in the Nevada divorce proceedings, where Upton had acknowledged that there was no community property as of June 11, 1982.

The trial court denied Van Dorn's motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the property involved was located in the Philippines and that the Nevada divorce decree therefore had no bearing on the case. Van Dorn consequently filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, questioning the denial of her motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court considered the petition despite the general rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and ordinarily not subject to appeal or certiorari, because it found that the trial court had committed grave abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court focused on the effect of the Nevada divorce on the parties. The Nevada court had jurisdiction over Van Dorn, who personally appeared during the proceedings, and over Upton, who authorized his attorneys to represent him and agree to the divorce on the ground of incompatibility, subject to the express understanding that there was no community property or community obligations to be adjudicated. The Court found that the Nevada divorce was valid and binding upon Upton as an American citizen.

ISSUE

The principal issue was whether the Nevada divorce obtained by the parties had legal effect in the Philippines with respect to Upton's right to claim and manage the alleged conjugal property of the parties located in the Philippines. Upton argued that the foreign divorce could not prevail over Philippine laws and public policy and that the Nevada decree could not divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction over property located in the Philippines.

The Court considered the effect of the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code, which provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons, are binding upon Philippine citizens even when they live abroad. The Court recognized that Philippine law generally does not recognize absolute divorce for Filipino citizens because of the country's public policy concerning marriage.

However, the Court distinguished the situation of an alien spouse. It held that aliens may obtain divorces abroad which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided that such divorces are valid according to their national law. Thus, the Court had to determine the legal consequences of the Nevada divorce upon Upton, who was an American citizen and was personally bound by the judgment of the Nevada court that had jurisdiction over him.

The Court therefore had to determine whether Upton, after being released from the marriage under American law by the Nevada divorce, could still invoke his former status as Van Dorn's husband under Philippine law to claim rights over the alleged conjugal property and to seek management thereof.

HELD

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and ordered the respondent judge to dismiss the complaint filed by Upton. The Court held that the Nevada divorce was valid and binding upon Upton as an American citizen. The Nevada court had jurisdiction over both parties, and Upton had authorized his attorneys to accept the divorce and had expressly represented that there was no community property or community obligations to be adjudicated.

The Court explained that under Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the Philippine policy against absolute divorces because laws concerning family rights, duties, status, condition, and legal capacity bind Filipino citizens even when they are abroad. The Court nevertheless recognized that aliens may obtain divorces abroad that may be recognized in the Philippines if valid according to their national law. Since Upton was an American citizen and the Nevada divorce was valid under American law, the divorce released him from the marriage according to his national law.

The Court further held that because the divorce severed the marital bond as to Upton under his national law, he was no longer the husband of Van Dorn and therefore had no standing to sue as her husband to exercise control over the alleged conjugal assets. The Court relied on the principle that the marriage tie, once validly severed by a court of competent jurisdiction, ceases to bind the parties under the law governing the divorce. Upton was also estopped by his own representation before the Nevada court that there was no community property or community obligations to be adjudicated.

The Court rejected the position that Van Dorn should continue to be treated under Philippine law as married to Upton and therefore remain subject to the obligations of a wife under the Civil Code. It stated that it would not be just to require her to continue living with, respecting, remaining faithful to, and supporting Upton when he was no longer her husband under his own national law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of Upton's complaint concerning the alleged conjugal property. The petition was granted, without costs