VAN DORN v ROMILLO (5) Respondent avers that Divorce Decree issued by Nevada Court cannot

  prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared
FC 26 (2)   national policy; that the acts and declaration of a foreign court cannot,
  especially if it is contrary to public policy, divest Philippine Courts of
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly   jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction.
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien (6) RTC denied Motion to Dismiss, stating that property involved is located in
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall
  the Philippines, so divorce decree had no bearing.
likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.  
  ISSUE: W/N the divorce decree is recognized in the Philippines and has
PONENTE: Melencio-Herrera, J.   jurisdiction over parties.
 
DOCTRINE: A divorce decree granted by a US Court between a Filipina HELD: Yes. The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had obtained
and her American husband is binding on the American husband.   jurisdiction over both petitioner and respondent.
 
Absolute divorce obtained by alien abroad may be recognized in the   (1) Although Article 15 of the CC provides that only Philippine nationals are
Philippines if valid under the national law of such alien.   covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being contrary to
public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
RULING FORMAT: RTC- Denied Motion to Dismiss. MR Denied. SC-
  which may be recognized in the Philippines provided they are valid
Granted Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.   according to their national law. In this case, the divorce decree released
  respondent from the bond of marriage, as US law provides that “divorce
FACTS:   dissolves the marriage.” Thus, pursuant to his national law, respondent is
(1) In 1972, petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino citizen, no longer the husband of the petitioner. He would have no standing to sue
 
married private respondent Richard Upton, a US Citizen in as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets.
Hongkong. They had 2 children. A few years later, they were   (2) Respondent authorized his attorneys in the divorce case to agree to the
divorced in Nevada.   divorce on the ground of incompatibility in the understanding that there
(2) Subsequently, petitioner re-married Theodore Van Dorn in   were no community property or community obligations, as explicitly
Nevada.   stated in the Power of Attorney executed by respondent. As he is bound by
(3) A year later, private respondent filed a suit against petitioner, the Decision of his own country’s Court, which has jurisdiction over him,
stating that petitioner’s business (the Galleon Shop) is conjugal   he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting
property of the parties. He asked that petitioner be ordered to   his right over the alleged conjugal property.
render an accounting of the business, and that he be declared with   (3) To consider petitioner still married to respondent and still subject to a
right to manage it.   wife’s obligations is unjust. Respondent should not continue to be one of
(4) Petitioner moved to dismiss case on the ground that cause of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property, as this would be
 
action is barred by previous divorce judgment in Nevada, wherein discrimination against her in her own country.
respondent acknowledged that he and petitioner had “no  
community property.” She added that respondent is estopped  
from laying claim due to his said representation, as well as prior  
judgment rendered; and that the Galleon Shop was not  
established through conjugal funds.