Van Dorn vs Romillo

GR No. 68470, October 8, 1985

While a divorce decree is not recognized in the Philippines as a matter of public policy, such policy covers only
Filipino citizens. Insofar as the alien husband is concerned, divorce is binding upon him.

FACTS:

A Filipino citizen (petitioner) and an American citizen (respondent) married in Hongkong, and established
residence in the Philippines. They had two children. After some time, they separated and divorced in Nevada, U.S.
The Fil citizen subsequently remarried another American citizen in Nevada.

Thereafter, private respondent filed a suit against petitioner, stating that the latter’s business in Manila is their
conjugal property, and asked that the latter be ordered to render an accounting of such business and that the
former be declared with the right to manage the conjugal property.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the
divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein private respondent had acknowledged that they had no
community property. He alleged that the divorce decree obtained by them in the US was void for being against
public policy.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so
that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case. As such, the denial is the subject of this certiorari proceeding.

ISSUE: What is the effect of foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines?

RULING:

The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada divorce of the parties.

While a divorce decree is not recognized in the Philippines as a matter of public policy, such policy covers only
Filipino citizens. Insofar as the alien husband is concerned, he is governed by his national law. Being an American
citizen, he is governed by the laws in the US which recognize divorce. Since his national law recognizes divorce,
the divorce decree is binding upon him.

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.