Herald black Dacasin, petitioner

Vs
Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, respondent

February 5, 2010
CARPIO, J:

FACTS
This is a suit to enforce a post-foreign divorce child custody agreement for lack of jurisdiction.

1. Petitioner and Respondent were married in Manila in April 1994.They have one daughter
named Stephanie who was born 21 September 1995.
2. In June 1999, respondent sought a divorce at Judicial Court, Lake Country, Illinois. In its
ruling, the marriage was dissolved and sole custody of Stephanie. Moreover, the court
retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes.
3. On January 28, 20002, petitioner and respondent executed an agreement in Manila for
the joint custody of Stephanie. The respondent relinquished jurisdiction from Illinois and
chose Philippines court to be the exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes arising from the
agreement.
4. In 2004, petitioner sued respondent in RTC Makati Branch 60 due to the respondents
violation of the joint custody agreement.
5. Respondent sought for dismissal due to the lack of jurisdiction since Illinois court retained
jurisdiction.
6. The trial court held that:
Jurisdiction over the divorce decree and joint custody agreement is retained with
Illinois
Divorce decree is binding on petitioner because of the nationality rule(Art 15)
Joint custody agreement is void because it is against the Article 2035 paragraph 5
of Civil code
No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid. (5) The jurisdiction
of courts
Respondents motion is dismissed.
7. Petitioner sought reconsideration questioning the validity of divorce decree sought by
respondent. Trial court denied motion for reconsideration because of nationality rule.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the trial court has jurisdiction to decide over the petitioners suit and enforce the
agreement on the joint-custody

HELD:
[On jurisdiction]
When the Illinois court retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement, it actually retained
jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the VARIOUS PROVISIONS of its judgement. On the other
hand, petitioners suit seeks enforcement not of the various provision but of the post-divorce
joint custody agreement.

Moreover,RA 7691 states that RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: (1) In all civil
actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

[On Joint Custody Agreement=Lack Cause of Action]

Article 15 Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

meaning, art 213 is applicable.

Article 213 In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the
parent designated by the Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations,
especially the choice of the child over seven yrs of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit.

No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court fins
compelling reason to order otherwise.

Considering this, the agreement made is contrary to law. Thus, inexistent and void from the
beginning.

Moreover, even if not contrary to law, the fact that the mother remained as the sole custodian
of the child is an act of repudiation.

[Validity of divorce]
The petitioner argued that the divorce decree is void because the same is contrary to public policy
and morality in Philippine laws. However, this argument is settled by holding that An Alien
spouse of a Filipino is bound by divorce decree obtained abroad. Divorces obtained abroad may
be recognized in the Philippines provided they are valid according to their national law.

[Case and Nature of proceeding justify remand]

Considering the age of Stephanie, she is removed from the mandatory maternal custody under
213. The law gives the separated freedom to agree on custody regimes they see fit to adopt,
subject to usual contractual limitation.
It is in the interest of justice, to apply the case under the basic proceeding which is the best
interest of the child.

Equity may be invoked to serve the best interest of the child

Parties to a contract are free to stipulate the terms of agreement

Ruling of the Court: reverse the order of RTC Makati. That is, the trial court has jurisdiction to
entertain petitioners suit but not to enforce the agreement which is void. An action for specific
performance, such as the case at bar, is under this rule.