Supreme Court STRIPS DISABLED AMERICAN of CIVIL and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Allows federal criminal law violations by corrupt attorneys and 3rd branch public servants while invalidating the ADA, the Magistrate Act, the Crime Victims Act and the 1st and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Dacasin v. Dacasin | G.R. No. 168785 | Feb. 5, 2010 | Carpio, J.
Syllabus: Jurisdiction RTC:
Summary: Petitioner (American) seeks to enforce an Agreement executed Dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction holding that: 1) It is in the Philippines, granting him joint custody with his estranged wife of his precluded from taking cognizance over the suit considering the daughter (who is below 7 years old). Respondent (Filipino) argues that Illinois court's retention of jurisdiction; 2) Divorce decree is binding RTC has no jurisdiction since their divorce decree, obtained in Illinois, on petitioner following the "nationality rule" prevailing in this states that the Illinois court retains jurisdiction for enforcement of jurisdiction; and 3) Agreement is void for contravening Art. 2035, provisions. SC held that RTC has jurisdiction over the case (i.e. a case for par. 5 NCC prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction specific performance hence, incapable of pecuniary estimation pursuant to Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing that the divorce decree is Sec 19, par 1 BP 129). Petitioner seeks to enforce the post-divorce void. Thus, it is no bar to RTC’s exercise of jurisdiction over the Agreement, not the provisions of the divorce decree. It is beyond the zone case. of the Illinois court’s “retained jurisdiction. However, it cannot enforce the RTC denied reconsideration, holding that divorce decree is binding agreement since it is contrary to law. Parents cannot stipulate as to on petitioner under the laws of his nationality. custody of a minor below 7 years old because custody belongs with the Petitioner submits the following alternative theories for the validity of mother (Art. 213, FC). the Agreement to justify its enforcement: 1) Agreement novated the valid divorce decree, modifying the terms of child custody from sole NATURE: Petition for review under Rule 45 from RTC decision (maternal) to joint; or (2) the Agreement is independent of the FACTS: divorce decree obtained by respondent. April 1994 – Petitioner Herald Dacasin (American) and respondent Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin (Filipino) were married in Manila ISSUE: W/N RTC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner's suit 21 September 1995 – Stephanie, their daughter, was born. and enforce the Agreement on the joint custody of the parties' child? June 1999 – respondent sought and obtained from the Illinois court, YES TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SUIT; NO TO ENFORCE a divorce decree against petitioner. Illinois court dissolved the AGREEMENT. marriage and awarded to respondent sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes HELD: Petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract RTC has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's suit but not to (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie. The parties chose enforce the Agreement, which is void. The case should be Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes arising remanded to settle the question of Stephanie's custody. from the Agreement. Respondent undertook to obtain from the Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law. Statutory law Illinois court an order "relinquishing" jurisdiction to Philippine courts. (Sec. 19, par. 1, BP 129) vests on RTC exclusive original 2004 – Petitioner sued respondent in the RTC Makati to enforce the jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation Agreement alleging that respondent exercised sole custody over such as an action for specific performance to enforce the Stephanie, in violation of the Agreement. Agreement on joint child custody. Respondent sought the dismissal of the complaint for lack of Jurisdiction-wise, petitioner went to the right court. jurisdiction because of Illinois court's retention of jurisdiction to RTC’s refusal to entertain petitioner's suit was grounded not on enforce the divorce decree. its lack of power to do so but on its thinking that the Illinois
Lopez, Catherine Nicole
court's divorce decree stripped it of jurisdiction. This conclusion RE: foreigners bound by foreign divorce decrees is unfounded. Van Dorn v. Romillo settled the matter by holding that an alien o What the Illinois court retained was "jurisdiction for the spouse of a Filipino is bound by a divorce decree obtained purpose of enforcing the various provisions of its abroad. Judgment for Dissolution." A foreign divorce decree carries as much validity against the Petitioner's suit seeks the enforcement of the post-divorce alien divorcee in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of Agreement on joint child custody, not the provisions of the the alien's nationality, irrespective of who obtained the divorce. divorce decree. The action lies beyond the Illinois court's Instead of ordering the dismissal of petitioner's suit, the logical "retained jurisdiction." end to its lack of cause of action, we remand the case for the trial court to settle the question of Stephanie's custody. RE: Custody pursuant to Art. 213 FC RTC cannot enforce the Agreement, which is contrary to law. RTC REVERSED. CASE REMANDED. Parties to a contract are free to stipulate the terms of agreement subject to the minimum ban on stipulations contrary to law, Abad, J. Separate Opinion morals, good customs, public order, or public policy In the matter of child custody, the mutual will of the child's At the time the Agreement was executed: (1) Stephanie was parents takes precedence in the absence of circumstances that justify recourse to the law. The law becomes relevant, only as a under seven years and (2) petitioner and respondent were no default, if a separated couple cannot agree on the custody of longer married under the laws of the United States. their child. The Agreement is not only void ab initio for being contrary to Agreement between petitioner and his wife providing for joint law, it has also been repudiated by the mother when she custody of their child is a valid exercise of parental discretion and refused to allow joint custody by the father. The Agreement authority. It is independent of the foreign divorce decree and may would be valid if the spouses have not divorced or separated be enforced or repudiated in this jurisdiction, since its object is because the law provides for joint parental authority when the custody of a Filipino-American minor residing in the spouses live together. Philippines. Second paragraph of Art. 213 FC applies only to judicial custodial agreements based on its text that "No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise." To limit this provision's enforceability to court sanctioned agreements while placing private agreements beyond its reach is to sanction a double standard in custody regulation of children under seven years old of separated parents. Article 213's bias favoring the mother are objections which question the law's wisdom not its validity or uniform enforceability.
Supreme Court STRIPS DISABLED AMERICAN of CIVIL and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Allows federal criminal law violations by corrupt attorneys and 3rd branch public servants while invalidating the ADA, the Magistrate Act, the Crime Victims Act and the 1st and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.