PRIL - #037

Recto v Harden (1956)

Doctrine: The Supreme Court considered the absolute divorce between the American husband and his American
wife as valid and binding in the Philippines on the theory that their status and capacity are governed by their
National law, namely, American law. There is no decision yet of the Supreme Court regarding the validity of such a
divorce if one of the parties, say an American, is married to a Filipino wife, for then two (2) different nationalities
would be involved. (This is from the concurring opinion of J. Paras in the case of Pilapil v Ibay-Somera 1989, since I
cannot find anywhere in the case something related to the topic ‘Personal Status and Capacity’)

Facts:
Esperanza de Harden, an American and married to Fred M. Harden, also an American, engaged the services of
Attorney Claro M. Recto to represent her in RP case for protection of her interest in the conjugal property in
conjunction with the divorce proceeding she's going to file in the US. The agreed compensation for Atty. Recto was
20% of the value of her share of the conjugal partnership after liquidation. The CFI of Manila ruled in her favor. On
appeal, Esperanza and Fred agreed to settle and to mutually release and forever discharge each other from all
actions, debts, duties, and claims to the conjugal partnership. Recto filed a motion contesting such agreement to
safeguard his right to collect the fees that may be due him. As a defense, Harden spouses argue that the contract
of services is void since the object was unlawful – the contract in question has for its purpose to secure a decree of
divorce, allegedly in violation of Articles 1305, 1352 and 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Issue:
WON the contract of services is void (contrary to contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy) such that Atty. Recto could not collect the fees due him.

Held/Ratio:
NO. The object of the contract was not to secure a divorce, or to facilitate or promote the procurement of a
divorce. It merely sought to protect the interest of Mrs. Harden in the conjugal partnership, during the pendency
of a divorce suit she intended to file in the United States. What is more, inasmuch as Mr. and Mrs. Harden are
admittedly citizens of the United States, their status and the dissolution thereof are governed — pursuant to
Article 9 of the Civil Code of Spain (which was in force in the Philippines at the time of the execution of the
contract in question) and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines — by the laws of the United States, which
sanction divorce. In short, the contract of services, between Mrs. Harden and herein Appellee, is not contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

Digested by: Bern