DACASIN VS.

DACASIN CASE DIGEST

FACTS:
 April 1994: Herald Dacasin (petitioner), American, and Sharon Del Mundo
Dacasin (respondent), Filipino, were married in Manila. They have one daughter,
Stephanie, born on September 21, 1995.
 June 1999. The respondent sought an obtained a divorce decree from Illinois
Court against the petitioner.
 Illinois court dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent, awarded sole
custody of Stephanie to the respondent, and retained jurisdiction over the case for
enforcement purposes.
 January 28, 2002: The petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract
(Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie.
 2004: The petitioner sued the responded to enforce the Agreement. The
respondent sought for its dismissal by saying the Philippine court lacked
jurisdiction because the Illinois court’s retention of jurisdiction.
 March 1, 2005: The trial court dismissed the petition holding that:
o Illinois’ retention of jurisdiction precluded the Court from the case
o The divorce decree is binding following the “nationality rule”
o The contract is void for contravening Article 2035, paragraph (5) of the
Civil Code.
 Although Herald sought for reconsideration by arguing the divorce decree void
(thus nullifying the Illinoi’s court retention) the RTC denied his petition.
 Herald brought the case to the Supreme Court with the following theories to
enforce the contract:
o “the contract novated (replaced) the valid divorce decree, modifying the
terms of child custody from sole to joint, or
o the contract is independent of the divorce decree obtained by respondent.”
ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s suit
 Whether or not petitioner has cause of action (or whether or not the joint custody
agreement is valid)
 Whether or not divorce decree is valid)

HOLDING:
 Yes. RTC exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions in which the subject of
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary (monetary) estimation. Illinois court
retained jurisdiction over the enforcement of its (divorce) judgment; suit seeks to
 enforce the post-divorce agreement on joint child custody not the provisions on
divorce.
 No (agreement is not valid). Fact: child was under 7 years old and parents were no
longer married under US law. FCP Art. 213: “in case of separation of the
parents… no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother,
unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.” Agreement is void
ab initio for being contrary to law. Agreement would be valid if the spouses have
not divorced or separated because the law provides for joint parental authority
when spouses live together.
 Yes. The court reiterated the Van Dorn and Pilapil decisions in showing that “a
foreign divorce decree carries as much validity against the alien divorcee in this
jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of the alien’s nationality, irrespective of
who obtained the divorce.”

RULING:
 Orders of the RTC Court reversed (ordinarily, petition should have been
dismissed) and remanded for further proceedings (as the child is now over seven
years and no longer under coverage of Art. 213’s mandatory maternal custody
regime)

DISSENT BY ABAD, J:
 Justice Abad concurs with the main opinion save for the primacy of the State’s
imposition with regard to child custody. He hold that if both parties can agree on
the terms of child custody, the State has no reason to intervene. (basis: Art. II, Sec
12, of the 1987 Constitution and Art. 209 of FCP). Only when there is dispute
should the State demand maternal custody (basis: Art. 213 of FCP).