VAN DORN vs. HON.

ROMILLO and RICHARD UPTON

G.R. No. L-68470
October 8, 1985

FACTS:

Petitioner, Alice Van Dorn is a Filipino citizen while private respondent, Richard Upton is a
citizen of the U.S. They were married in Hongkong in 1972, but established their residence in the
Philippines. In 1982, the parties were divorced in Nevada, U.S. and the petitioner has re-married also
in Nevada to Theodore Van Dorn.

In 1983, Richard filed a suit against Alice in RTC, stating that Alices business (the Galleon
Shop) is a conjugal property. He is asking for an accounting of the business to be rendered, and
seeking to be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Alice moved to dismiss on the
ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the
Nevada Court where Richard had acknowledged that he and Alice had no community property.

The Court below denied the MTD on the ground that the property is located in the Philippines
so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case. The denial is the subject of this Certiorari
proceeding.


ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the divorce decree obtained abroad is valid and should be recognized in our
jurisdiction?

2. What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in
the Philippines?


RULING:

1. YES. A divorce decree granted by a U.S. Court between a Filipina and her American
husband is binding on the American husband. The decree is therefore binding upon Richard, being a
citizen of the U.S.

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Art. 15 of the CC, only Philippine
nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to
our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized here in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this
case, the divorce in Nevada released Richard from the marriage from the standards of American law,
under which divorce dissolves marriage.

2. An American granted absolute divorce in his country with his Filipina wife is estopped from
asserting his rights over property allegedly held in the Philippines as conjugal property. Pursuant to
his national law, Richard is no longer the husband of Alice. He would have no standing to sue in the
case below as Alices husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by
the decision of his own countrys court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose
decision he did not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said court from
asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

To maintain that under our laws, Alice has to be considered still married to Richard and still
subject to a wifes obligation cannot be just. Alice should not be obliged to live together with, observe
respect and fidelity, and render support to Richard. She should not be discriminated against in her
own country if the ends of justice are to be served.