Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr.

An absolute divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse is valid and binding in the Philippines, and it effectively terminates the marital bond from the perspective of the alien spouse; consequently, the alien spouse loses the standing to sue the Filipino spouse in the Philippines for rights arising from the marriage, such as the management or division of alleged conjugal property.

Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Richard Upton, a US citizen, were married in Hongkong in 1972 and established their residence in the Philippines. They had two children. In 1982, they obtained a divorce decree from a court in Nevada, USA, where Upton acknowledged that they had no community property. Subsequently, Van Dorn remarried. A year after the divorce, Upton filed a lawsuit in the Philippines, claiming that a business owned by Van Dorn was conjugal property and seeking an accounting and the right to manage it.

• Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a Filipino citizen, while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States.
• They were married in Hongkong in 1972 and subsequently established their residence in the Philippines, where they had two children.
• In 1982, the parties were granted a divorce by the Nevada District Court in the United States.
• In the divorce proceedings, private respondent Upton acknowledged that he and the petitioner had "no community property" as of June 11, 1982.
• Following the divorce, petitioner remarried another American, Theodore Van Dorn.
• On June 8, 1983, Upton filed a civil case in the RTC of Pasay City, alleging that petitioner's business in Manila, the Galleon Shop, was conjugal property.
• Upton's complaint asked the court to order petitioner to render an accounting of the business and to declare him as having the right to manage said property.
• Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the cause of action was barred by the prior judgment in the Nevada divorce case.
• The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the property is located in the Philippines and thus the foreign divorce decree has no bearing on the case.

• Private respondent is estopped from claiming the existence of conjugal property because he had represented to the Nevada court during the divorce proceedings that they had no community property.
• The private respondent's claim is barred by prior judgment, specifically the divorce decree issued by the competent Nevada court.
• The business in question, the Galleon Shop, was not established using conjugal funds.

• The divorce decree issued by the Nevada court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared public policy against divorce.
• A foreign court's acts and declarations cannot divest Philippine courts of their jurisdiction to entertain matters within their territory, especially when such acts are contrary to local public policy.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the trial court's interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the foreign divorce decree obtained by the parties is recognizable in the Philippines and what its effect is on the alien spouse's capacity to claim rights over alleged conjugal property located in the Philippines.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, certiorari is a proper remedy in this case. While the denial of a motion to dismiss is generally an interlocutory order not subject to appeal, the Supreme Court may exercise its supervisory authority through certiorari when the lower court commits a patent grave abuse of discretion or acts capriciously, which is equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that allowing the case to proceed would be useless and a waste of time, thus justifying the exception.
• Substantive:
  • The foreign divorce decree is valid and binding on the private respondent, an American citizen, according to his national law. Under American law, the divorce absolutely dissolves the marriage, meaning he is no longer the petitioner's husband. As such, he has no legal standing to sue as a husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. Furthermore, he is estopped by his own representation before the Nevada court that they had no community property. The Court held that it would be unjust to consider the petitioner still married to the respondent under Philippine law and subject to a wife's obligations when the respondent is no longer bound by any marital obligations to her.

• Nationality Principle — This principle, embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, states that Philippine laws relating to family rights, duties, status, and legal capacity are binding on Filipino citizens, even when they are abroad. The Court applied this to explain why the policy against absolute divorce primarily covers Filipino nationals but clarified that aliens, like the private respondent, are governed by their own national laws, which may permit divorce.
• Doctrine of Estoppel — This doctrine prevents a person from asserting something contrary to what they had previously represented as true. The Court applied this by ruling that the private respondent, having acknowledged in the Nevada divorce proceedings that there was no community property, was estopped from later claiming in a Philippine court that a certain business was conjugal property.
• Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decree — The Court affirmed the principle that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which can be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the Nevada divorce validly severed the marriage tie for the American respondent, and this legal effect was recognized by the Philippine court.

• "The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law."
• "To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served."

• Atherton vs. Atherton — Cited to establish the legal effect of a divorce decree under American law, which is to completely sever the marriage bond for both parties, leaving neither a husband nor a wife.
• Recto vs. Harden — Referenced as authority for the rule that divorces obtained abroad by aliens may be recognized in the Philippines if they are valid according to the alien's national law.
• Sanchez vs. Zosa and Malit vs. People — Cited as procedural precedents justifying the use of certiorari to correct an interlocutory order where there is a grave abuse of discretion.
• U.S.T. vs. Hon. Villanueva — Cited to support the Court's decision to give due course to the petition to avoid a useless and time-wasting proceeding in the lower court.

• Article 15, Civil Code — This article establishes the nationality principle, which the court explained is the basis for the Philippine policy against absolute divorce for its citizens but does not extend to aliens who are governed by their respective national laws.
• Article 109, et seq., Civil Code — These articles, which enumerate a wife's obligations, were cited by the Court to highlight the injustice of the respondent's position, which would subject the petitioner to these duties while he himself is free from any marital obligations.