G.R. No.

L-68470, October 8, 1985

Petitioner: Alice Reyes Van Dorn
Respondents: Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr. (Presiding Judge), Richard Upton
Article 15 – 17
Art. 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 (9a)
Art. 16: Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is
situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession
and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions,
whose succession shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found. (10a)
Art. 17: The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills and other public instruments shall be
governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic
of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be
observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their
object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or
judgements promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
(11a)
FACTS:
The petitioner, Alice Reyes Van Dorn seeks to set aside the Orders in Civil Case 1075-P,
issued by respondent Judge, which denied her Motion to Dismiss said case, and her Motion for
Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order on September 15, 1983 and August 3, 1984, respectively.
• The petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines, was married to the private respondent, a
citizen of the United States, in Hongkong in 1972 and established their residence in the
Philippines.
• However, the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States in 1982, and that the
petitioner re-married again in Nevada to Theodore Van Dorn.
• On June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner, stating that petitioner’s
business (the Galleon shop) in Ermita, Manila, is conjugal property of the parties, and
asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business and that private
respondent be declared with right to manage the said property.
 • Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by
the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court, wherein the respondent acknowledged
that both parties had “no community property” following their divorce.
• Because the location of the property is in the Philippines, the Court denied the Motion to
Dismiss so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.
• The Petitioner argued that aside from the divorce proceedings before the American Court
that they had no community of property; the Galleon Shop was not established through
conjugal funds.
• However, the private respondent argued that the Divorce Decree cannot prevail over the
prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy; that the divorce is not
valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public
policy.
ISSUE: Is the private respondent’s claim upon the alleged conjugal property valid even though
the petitioner and the private respondent were divorced before the Nevada Court?
RULING:
The Petition is granted, and the respondent Judge is hereby ordered to dismiss the Complaint
filed in Civil Case No. 1075-P of his Court. Without Costs.
RATIONALE:
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Art. 15 of the Civil Code, only
the Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces. However, aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided that they are valid
according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent
from marriage form the standards of American law. Thus, the private respondent and the
petitioner’s divorce is recognized and the former would have no standing to sue in the case below
as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets.