Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr. Digest

 

Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr. G.R. No. L-6847! "c#o$er 8, %&8' FACTS: Petitioner Van Dorn, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Richard Upton, a US citizen, marrie mar ried d in Hong Hongong ong in !"#$% !"#$% A&t &ter er the marria marriage, ge, the' the' esta( esta(lis lished hed their their resid residenc ence e in the Philippines% )n !"*$, the parties +ere divorced in evada, United States% Priva Private te resp respond ondent ent -led -led civil civil ca case se again against st Van Dorn Dorn statin stating g that that th the e .alleo .alleon n Shop, Shop, petitioner/s (0siness in 1rmita, 2anila, is a con30gal propert'% Private respondent then ass that petitioner (e ordered to render an acco0nting o& said (0siness and that the &ormer (e declared +ith right to manage the con30gal propert'% Petit Pe tition ioner er conten contends ds that that respo responde ndent nt is estopp estopped ed &rom &rom claimi claiming ng th the e allege alleged d con30g con30gal al propert' (eca0se their marriage has alread' (een divorced% Respondent, &or his part, asserts that the Divorce Divorce Decree Decree iss0ed iss0ed (' the evada Co0rt, a &oreign &oreign co0rt, canno cannott prevail prevail over the declared declar ed national polic' o& the Philippines +hich prohi(its divorce% divorce% )SSU1: !% 4he 4hethe therr or not the evada evada divorc divorce e is recogn recognize ized d (' the Philip Philippi pine ne la+s and is th0s th0s valid% H15D:  6es%  6es% Article !7 o& the Civil Code provides that onl' Filipino nationals are covered (' the polic' against a(sol0te divorce, as it is considered contrar' to the concept o& p0(lic polic' and morali mor alit' t'%% Aliens Aliens ma' o(tain o(tain divor divorces ces a(road a(road,, +hich +hich ma' (e recog recogniz nized ed in th the e Philip Philippi pines nes,, provi provided ded the' the' ar are e valid valid accor accordin ding g to their their nation national al la+% la+% )n this this sense sense,, th the e Philip Philippin pine e la+s la+s recognize the validit' o& the evada divorce since as an American citizen, private respondent is (o0nd (' the Decision o& his o+n co0ntr'/s Co0rt +hich validl' e8ercised 30risdiction over him%  There&ore,  There&or e, private respondent respondent cannot s0e petitioner and cannot la' claim on the alleged con30gal propert', as the &ormer is no longer the h0s(and o& the latter%