BARRETO GONZALES vs GONZALES March 7, 1933 FACTS: The plaintiff & defendant were both citizens of the Philippines,

married & lived together from January 1919 until Spring of 1926. After which they voluntary separated & have not lived together as man & wife, they had 4 minor children together. After negotiations, both parties mutually agreed to allow Manuela Barreto (plaintiff) for her & her childrens support of P500 (five hundred pesos) monthly which to be increased in cases of necessity & illness, and that the title of certain properties be put in her name. Shortly after the agreement, Augusto Gonzales (defendant), went to Reno, Nevada & secured in that jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion dated November 28, 1927. On that same date he went through the forms of marriage with another Filipino citizen as well & had 3 children with her. When Gonzales left the Philippines, he reduced the amount he had agreed to pay monthly for the support of Manuela Barreto & her children & has not made the payments fixed in the Reno divorce as alimony. Gonzales came back to the Philippines in August 1928 and shortly after, Barreto brought an action at the CFI-Manila requesting to confirm & ratify the decree of divorce issued by the courts of Nevada & invoked sec 9 of Act 2710. Such is requested to be enforced, and deliver to the Guardian ad litem the equivalent of what would have been due to their children as their legal portion from respective estates had their parents died intestate on November 28, 1927, they also prayed that the marriage existing between Barreto & Gonzales be declared dissolved & Gonzales be ordered to pay Barreto P500 per month, counsel fees of P5000 & all the expenses incurred in educating the 3 minor sons. The guardians of the children also filed as intervenors in the case . After the hearing, the CFI-Manila granted the judgement in favor of the plaintiff & intervenors, butreduced the attorneys fees to P3000 instead & also granted the costs of the action against thedefendant, Hence, this appeal by Gonzales saying that the lower court erred in their decision. ISSUE: WON any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and under conditions for which the courts of the Philippine Islands would grant a divore?

RULING: NO. Securing the jurisdiction of the courts to recognize & approve the divorce done in Reno, Nevada cannot be done according to the public policy in this jurisdiction on the question of divorce. Articles 9 & Art 11 of the Civil Code & The Divorce Law of the Philippines does not allow such to be done the effect of foreign divorce in the Philippines says that litigants cannot compel the courts to approve of their own actions or permit the personal relations of the Citizens of the Philippines to be affected by decrees of divorce of foreign courts in manner which out government believes is contrary to public order & good morals. Article 9 thereof reads as follows: The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity or persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign country. And article 11, the last part of which reads:. . . the prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts and their property, and those intended to promote public order and good morals, shall nor be rendered without effect by any foreign laws or judgments or by anything done or any agreements entered into a foreign country