VAN DORN v. ROMILLO G.R. No. L-68470, FIRST DIVISION, October 8, 1985, MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

Doctrine Owing to nationality principle enshrined in Article 15 of the NCC, only Filipinos are covered by
the policy of absolute divorces as it is considered contrary to the concept of public policy and morality.
However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they
are valid according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released Upton from the
marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national law, Upton is no longer the husband of Van Dorn. He would
have no standing to sue in the case as Van Dorn’s husband.

FACTS: Van Dorn, a Filipino citizen, and Upton, US citizen, were married in Hong Kong. They established
their residence in the Philippines and begot two children. After some years, the parties divorced in
Nevada, United States. Van Dorn has re-married to Theodore Van Dorn. A suit then was instituted by
Upton stating that petitioner’s business is a conjugal property with Upton and prayed that Van Dorn be
ordered to render accounting of the business and he be declared with right to manage the conjugal
property. Van Dorn moved to dismiss the case as the cause of action is barred by the judgment in the
divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein Upton acknowledged that he and Van Dorn had
“no community property.” Lower Court denied the motion to dismiss stating that the property is located
in the Philippines, and that the Divorce decree from Nevada Court cannot prevail over prohibitive laws
of the Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign divorce is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino.
(YES)

RULING: As to Upton, the divorce is binding as an American citizen. Owing to nationality principle
enshrined in Article 15 of the NCC, only Filipinos are covered by the policy of absolute divorces as it is
considered contrary to the concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national
law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released Upton from the marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national
law, Upton is no longer the husband of Van Dorn. He would have no standing to sue in the case as Van
Dorn’s husband. As to Van Dorn, she should not be obliged to live together with observe respect and
fidelity, and render support to Upton. She should not be discriminated against in her own country. To
maintain that Van Dorn is still considered married to Upton is unjust and the ends of justice cannot be
served