You are on page 1of 1

Gorayeb vs. Hashim Facts: Plaintiff Gorayeb and defendant Hashim were married in Syria.

They were separated in fact formore than twelve years. The Plaintiff instituted civil case No. 19115 in the CFI to compel the defendantto pay her alimony.The Court of First Instance on December 24, 1923 decided in favour of the Plaintiff awarding heralimony of P500.00 per monthWhile the decision of the plaintiffs claim of support was still undetermined, the defendant went to theUnited States where he was able to procure a divorce decree from the State of Nevada. He went back tothe Philippines and the plaintiff filed a motion in civil case No. 19115, alleging that the defendant hadfailed to pay the pension of P500 per month, which had been awarded to her in the decision of December 24, 1923, and praying that he be adjudged to be in contempt of court and that he be finedand sentenced to imprisonment for six months and until he should comply with the order. As defense ,the defendant pleaded the divorce decree from Nevada, asserting that because of the such decree hismarriage to the plaintiff was already dissolved therefore releasing him from the judgment of the lowercourt . The Court of appeals decided that despite the divorce decree the defendant should continuepaying the plaintiff P100 per month. Issue: 1. Whether or not the foreign decree of divorce should be recognized by Philippine court. 2. Whether or not there is still a need of an affirmative action or a special proceeding in order forour courts to recognize a foreign decree of divorce. Ruling: 1. The Court citing the ruling in Ramirez vs. Gmur (42 Phil., 855) xxx. Held that the court of a country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and to which one or both of them may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce has no jurisdiction to determine their matrimonial status; and a divorce granted by such a court is not entitled to recognition elsewhere. The voluntary appearance of the defendant before such a tribunal does not invest the court with jurisdiction. In the same case this court went on to say: "It follows that, to give a court jurisdiction on the ground of the plaintiff's residence in the State or country of the judicial forum, his residence must be bona fide. If a spouse leaves the family domicile and goes to another State for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce, and with no intention of remaining, his residence there is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the courts of that State. This is especially true where the cause of divorce is one not recognized by the laws of the State of his own domicile.