Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985 AL CE RE!

ES "AN #ORN, petitioner, vs. $ON. MANUEL ". ROM LLO, %R., &' Pre'()(*+ %,)+e o- .r&*c/ C0, Re+(o*&1 Tr(&1 Co,rt ot/e N&t(o*&1 C&2(t&1 Re+(o* P&'&3 C(t3 &*) R C$AR# UPTON respondents.

MELENC O-$ERRERA, J.:\ In this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner lice Re!es Van Dorn see"s to set aside the Orders, dated Septe#ber $%, $&'( and u)ust (, $&'*, in +ivil +ase No. $,-%.P, issued b! respondent /ud)e, 0hich denied her Motion to Dis#iss said case, and her Motion for Reconsideration of the Dis#issal Order, respectivel!. The basic bac")round facts are that petitioner is a citi1en of the Philippines 0hile private respondent is a citi1en of the 2nited States3 that the! 0ere #arried in 4on)"on) in $&-53 that, after the #arria)e, the! established their residence in the Philippines3 that the! be)ot t0o children born on pril *, $&-( and Dece#ber $', $&-%, respectivel!3 that the parties 0ere divorced in Nevada, 2nited States, in $&'53 and that petitioner has re.#arried also in Nevada, this ti#e to Theodore Van Dorn. Dated /une ', $&'(, private respondent filed suit a)ainst petitioner in +ivil +ase No. $,-%.P of the Re)ional Trial +ourt, 6ranch +7V, in Pasa! +it!, statin) that petitioner8s business in 9r#ita, Manila, :the ;alleon Shop, for short<, is con=u)al propert! of the parties, and as"in) that petitioner be ordered to render an accountin) of that business, and that private respondent be declared 0ith ri)ht to #ana)e the con=u)al propert!. Petitioner #oved to dis#iss the case on the )round that the cause of action is barred b! previous =ud)#ent in the divorce proceedin)s before the Nevada +ourt 0herein respondent had ac"no0led)ed that he and petitioner had >no co##unit! propert!> as of /une $$, $&'5. The +ourt belo0 denied the Motion to Dis#iss in the #entioned case on the )round that the propert! involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearin) in the case. The denial is no0 the sub=ect of this certiorari proceedin). ;enerall!, the denial of a Motion to Dis#iss in a civil case is interlocutor! and is not sub=ect to appeal. certiorari and Prohibition are neither the re#edies to ?uestion the propriet! of an interlocutor! order of the trial +ourt. 4o0ever, 0hen a )rave abuse of discretion 0as patentl! co##itted, or the lo0er +ourt acted capriciousl! and 0hi#sicall!, then it devolves upon this +ourt in a certiorari proceedin) to e@ercise its supervisor! authorit! and to correct the error co##itted 0hich, in such a case, is e?uivalent to lac" of =urisdiction. 1 Prohibition 0ould then lie since it 0ould be useless and a 0aste of ti#e to )o ahead 0ith the proceedin)s. 4 Aeconsider the petition filed in this case 0ithin the e@ception, and 0e have )iven it due course. For resolution is the effect of the forei)n divorce on the parties and their alle)ed con=u)al propert! in the Philippines.

Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped fro# la!in) clai# on the alle)ed con=u)al propert! because of the representation he #ade in the divorce proceedin)s before the #erican +ourt that the! had no co##unit! of propert!3 that the ;alleon Shop 0as not established throu)h con=u)al funds, and that respondent8s clai# is barred b! prior =ud)#ent. For his part, respondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued b! the Nevada +ourt cannot prevail over the prohibitive la0s of the Philippines and its declared national polic!3 that the acts and declaration of a forei)n +ourt cannot, especiall! if the sa#e is contrar! to public polic!, divest Philippine +ourts of =urisdiction to entertain #atters 0ithin its =urisdiction. For the resolution of this case, it is not necessar! to deter#ine 0hether the propert! relations bet0een petitioner and private respondent, after their #arria)e, 0ere upon absolute or relative co##unit! propert!, upon co#plete separation of propert!, or upon an! other re)i#e. The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada divorce of the parties. The Nevada District +ourt, 0hich decreed the divorce, had obtained =urisdiction over petitioner 0ho appeared in person before the +ourt durin) the trial of the case. It also obtained =urisdiction over private respondent 0ho, )ivin) his address as No. ('$ 6ush Street, San Francisco, +alifornia, authori1ed his attorne!s in the divorce case, Barp C ;radt Dtd., to a)ree to the divorce on the )round of inco#patibilit! in the understandin) that there 0ere neither co##unit! propert! nor co##unit! obli)ations. 5 s e@plicitl! stated in the Po0er of ttorne! he e@ecuted in favor of the la0 fir# of B RP C ;R D DTD., ((E A. Dibert!, Reno, Nevada, to represent hi# in the divorce proceedin)sF @@@ @@@ @@@ Gou are hereb! authori1ed to accept service of Su##ons, to file an ns0er, appear on #! behalf and do an thin)s necessar! and proper to represent #e, 0ithout further contestin), sub=ect to the follo0in)F $. That #! spouse see"s a divorce on the )round of inco#patibilit!. 5. That there is no co##unit! of propert! to be ad=udicated b! the +ourt. (. 8I8hat there are no co##unit! obli)ations to be ad=udicated b! the court.
@@@ @@@ @@@ 4

There can be no ?uestion as to the validit! of that Nevada divorce in an! of the States of the 2nited States. The decree is bindin) on private respondent as an #erican citi1en. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in an! State of the 2nion. Ahat he is contendin) in this case is that the divorce is not valid and bindin) in this =urisdiction, the sa#e bein) contrar! to local la0 and public polic!. It is true that o0in) to the nationalit! principle e#bodied in rticle $% of the +ivil +ode, 5 onl! Philippine nationals are covered b! the polic! a)ainst absolute divorces the sa#e bein) considered contrar! to our concept of public police and #oralit!. 4o0ever, aliens #a! obtain divorces abroad, 0hich #a! be reco)ni1ed in the Philippines, provided the! are valid accordin) to their national la0. 6 In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent fro# the #arria)e fro# the standards of #erican la0, under 0hich divorce dissolves the marriage. s stated b! the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs. Atherton , *% D. 9d. -&*, -&&F

The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce fro# the bond of #atri#on! b! a court of co#petent =urisdiction are to chan)e the e@istin) status or do#estic relation of husband and 0ife, and to free the# both fro# the bond. The #arria)e tie 0hen thus severed as to one part!, ceases to bind either. husband 0ithout a 0ife, or a 0ife 0ithout a husband, is un"no0n to the la0. Ahen the la0 provides, in the nature of a penalt!. that the )uilt! part! shall not #arr! a)ain, that part!, as 0ell as the other, is still absolutel! freed fro# the bond of the for#er #arria)e. Thus, pursuant to his national la0, private respondent is no lon)er the husband of petitioner. 4e 0ould have no standin) to sue in the case belo0 as petitioner8s husband entitled to e@ercise control over con=u)al assets. s he is bound b! the Decision of his o0n countr!8s +ourt, 0hich validl! e@ercised =urisdiction over hi#, and 0hose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped b! his o0n representation before said +ourt fro# assertin) his ri)ht over the alle)ed con=u)al propert!. To #aintain, as private respondent does, that, under our la0s, petitioner has to be considered still #arried to private respondent and still sub=ect to a 0ife8s obli)ations under rticle $,&, et. seq. of the +ivil +ode cannot be =ust. Petitioner should not be obli)ed to live to)ether 0ith, observe respect and fidelit!, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs 0ith possible ri)hts to con=u)al propert!. She should not be discri#inated a)ainst in her o0n countr! if the ends of =ustice are to be served. A49R9FOR9, the Petition is )ranted, and respondent /ud)e is hereb! ordered to dis#iss the +o#plaint filed in +ivil +ase No. $,-%.P of his +ourt. Aithout costs. SO ORD9R9D. Teehankee (Chairman) !lana "elova #utierre$ %r. &e la Fuente and !ata'o %%. concur.

6oot*ote' $ Sanche1 vs. Hosa, E' S+R $-$ :$&-%<3 Malit vs. People, $$* S+R (*' :$&'5<. 5 2.S.T. vs. 4on. Villanueva, et al., $,E Phil. *(& :$&%&<. ( nne@ >G>, Petition for +ertiorari. * p. &', Rollo. % > rt. $%. Da0s relatin) to fa#il! ri)hts and duties or to the status, condition and le)al capacit! of persons are bindin) upon citi1ens of the Philippines, even thou)h livin) abroad. E cf. Recto vs. 4arden, $,, Phil. *5- I$&%EJ3 Paras, +ivil +ode, $&-$ ed., Vol. I, p. %53 Salon)a, Private International Da0, $&-& ed., p. 5($.>