Van Dorn v. Romillo

Facts:

Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and Richard Upton, a US Citizen, were married in 1979.  They established their residence in the Philippines and had two children.  In 1982, the parties were divorced in Nevada, USA and the petitioner was re-married to Theodore Van Dorn.  Private Respondent, Richard Upton filed suit against petitioner claiming that a business in Ermita, Manila, is a conjugal property of the parties, and that the latter should render an accounting of that business, and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property.

Issue:

Whether or not the foreign divorce in Nevada between the petitioner and private respondent is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen?

Held:

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. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union. What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.

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 police 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.