Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    Van Dorn vs. Romillo

    Uploaded by

    chatmche-06
    This case involves a divorce granted in Nevada, US between an American citizen (Richard) and a Filipino citizen (Alice). In the divorce proceedings, Richard acknowledged that he and Alice had no community property. Despite this, Richard later filed a suit in the Philippines claiming Alice's business was conjugal property and demanding an accounting. Alice argued Richard was estopped from making this claim due to his prior statement in the divorce. The court ruled that as the divorce was valid under American law, Richard was no longer Alice's husband and had no standing to sue over alleged conjugal assets. It also held that Alice should not be obliged to treat Richard as her husband under Philippine law given the foreign divorce.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Van Dorn vs. Romillo

    Uploaded by

    chatmche-06
    70 views1 page
    This case involves a divorce granted in Nevada, US between an American citizen (Richard) and a Filipino citizen (Alice). In the divorce proceedings, Richard acknowledged that he and Alice had no community property. Despite this, Richard later filed a suit in the Philippines claiming Alice's business was conjugal property and demanding an accounting. Alice argued Richard was estopped from making this claim due to his prior statement in the divorce. The court ruled that as the divorce was valid under American law, Richard was no longer Alice's husband and had no standing to sue over alleged conjugal assets. It also held that Alice should not be obliged to treat Richard as her husband under Philippine law given the foreign divorce.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a divorce granted in Nevada, US between an American citizen (Richard) and a Filipino citizen (Alice). In the divorce proceedings, Richard acknowledged that he and Alice had no community property. Despite this, Richard later filed a suit in the Philippines claiming Alice's business was conjugal property and demanding an accounting. Alice argued Richard was estopped from making this claim due to his prior statement in the divorce. The court ruled that as the divorce was valid under American law, Richard was no longer Alice's husband and had no standing to sue over alleged conjugal assets. It also held that Alice should not be obliged to treat Richard as her husband under Philippine law given the foreign divorce.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    70 views1 page

    Van Dorn vs. Romillo

    Uploaded by

    chatmche-06
    This case involves a divorce granted in Nevada, US between an American citizen (Richard) and a Filipino citizen (Alice). In the divorce proceedings, Richard acknowledged that he and Alice had no community property. Despite this, Richard later filed a suit in the Philippines claiming Alice's business was conjugal property and demanding an accounting. Alice argued Richard was estopped from making this claim due to his prior statement in the divorce. The court ruled that as the divorce was valid under American law, Richard was no longer Alice's husband and had no standing to sue over alleged conjugal assets. It also held that Alice should not be obliged to treat Richard as her husband under Philippine law given the foreign divorce.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr.

    ,
    No. L-68470 / OCT. 08, 1985
    139 SCRA 13
    Facts:
    Alice Van Dorn, a Filipino citizen and Richard Upton, an American citizen, were married in Hongkong in 1972. After
    the marriage, they resided in the Philippines and begot two children. In 1982, the parties

    were divorced in Nevada, United States. Alice has re-married in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
    In 1983, Richard filed suit against Alice with the RTC stating that her business in Ermita, Manila is
    conjugal property of the parties. He asks that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of that business,
    and that Richard be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Alice moved to dismiss the case
    on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before
    the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no community
    property" as of June 11, 1982. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss. Hence, this petition.
    In her petition, Alice contends that Richard is estopped from claiming on the alleged conjugal property
    because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings before the American Court that they
    had no community of property; hence, barred by prior judgment. Richard avers that the Divorce Decree
    issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared
    national policy; the acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannot, especially if the same is contrary to
    public policy, divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Richard still has the right over the alleged conjugal properties.

    Ruling:
    There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United
    States. The decree is binding on Richard as an American citizen. It is true that owing to the nationality
    principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
    against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and
    morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized 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 the
    marriage.
    Thus, 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 her husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound
    by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose
    decision he does 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 wife's
    obligations under Article 109 of the Civil Code cannot be just. Alice should not be obliged to live together with,
    observe respect and fidelity, and render support to Richard. 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.

    You might also like