Roehr Vs Rodriguez

Roehr vs.
Rodriguez
FACTS:
• Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen and resident of Germany,

married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11,
1980 in Hamburg, Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified on
February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental.4 Out of their union were born
Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine on November 18, 1981 and October 25,
1987, respectively.
• On August 28, 1996, private respondent filed a petition5 for declaration of

nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court
• petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
• but it was denied by the trial court in its order dated May 28, 1997.
• petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was also denied.
• On September 5, 1997, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals.
• On November 27, 1998, the appellate court denied the petition and
remanded the case to the RTC.
• petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of

Hamburg-Blankenese, promulgated on December 16, 1997
• The parental custody for the children was granted to the father
• petitioner filed a Second Motion to Dismiss on May 20, 1999 on the ground
that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or
suit as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the
marriage of petitioner and private respondent.
• On July 14, 1999, Judge Guevara-Salonga issued an order granting

petitioner’s motion to dismiss.
• Private respondent filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer

that the case proceed for the purpose of determining the issues of custody of
children and the distribution of the properties between petitioner and private
respondent.
• an Opposition to the Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed by the

petitioner on the ground that there is nothing to be done anymore in the
instant case as the marital tie between petitioner Wolfgang Roehr and
respondent Ma. Carmen D. Rodriguez had already been severed by the
decree of divorce promulgated by the Court of First Instance of Hamburg,
Germany
• On September 30, 1999, respondent judge issued the assailed order partially
setting aside her order for the purpose of tackling the issues of property
relations of the spouses as well as support and custody of their children.
• Petitioner filed a timely motion for reconsideration on October 19, 1999,

which was denied by respondent judge
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing her
order dated September 30, 1999, which partially modified her order dated July 14,
1999; and
2. Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her discretion when she
assumed and retained jurisdiction over the present case despite the fact that
petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from a German court.
On the first issue, petitioner asserts that the assailed order of respondent judge is
completely inconsistent with her previous order and is contrary to Section 3, Rule
16, Rules of Civil Procedure
Pertinent to this issue is Section 3 in relation to Section 7, Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, which provides:
Sec. 3. Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration.—The trial court may set
aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial, upon such terms as may be
just, or may deny the motion. If the court finds that excessive damages have been
awarded or that the judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence or law, it
may amend such judgment or final order accordingly.
Sec. 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration.—If the grounds for a motion under this
Rule appear to the court to affect the issues as to only a part, or less than all of the
matters in controversy, or only one, or less than all, of the parties to it, the court
may order a new trial or grant reconsideration as to such issues if severable without
interfering with the judgment or final order upon the rest.
HELD:
the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,, issued on September 30, 1999 and
March 31, 2000 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. We hereby declare that the trial
court has jurisdiction over the issue between the parties as to who has parental
custody, including the care, support and education of the children, namely
Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine Roehr. Let the records of this case be remanded
promptly to the trial court for continuation of appropriate proceedings. No
pronouncement as to costs.
1. It is clear from the foregoing rules that a judge can order a partial
reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality. Considering that
private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary
period,
2. In this case, the divorce decree issued by the German court dated December
16, 1997 has not been challenged by either of the parties. In fact, save for
the issue of parental custody, even the trial court recognized said decree to
be valid and binding, thereby endowing private respondent the capacity to
remarry. Thus, the present controversy mainly relates to the award of the
custody of their two children, Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine, to petitioner.
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries

are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof on custody,
care and support of the children, must still be determined by our courts.
• a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the

justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the
contrary
In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given the
opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for
declaring that judgment as res judicata with regard to the rights of petitioner to
have parental custody of their two children.
The decree did not touch on the issue as to who the offending spouse was. Absent
any finding that private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the children, the
trial court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine the issue of
parental custody,
On the matter of property relations, petitioner asserts that public respondent

exceeded the bounds of her jurisdiction when she claimed cognizance of the issue
concerning property relations between petitioner and private respondent.
Given the factual admission by the parties in their pleadings that there is no
property to be accounted for, respondent judge has no basis to assert jurisdiction in
this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in controversy.
we find that respondent judge may proceed to determine the issue
regarding the custody of the two children born of the union between
petitioner and private respondent. Private respondent erred, however, in
claiming cognizance to settle the matter of property relations of the
parties, which is not at issue.

Roehr Vs Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roehr Vs Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roehr Vs Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roehr vs.

• Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen and resident of Germany,

• On August 28, 1996, private respondent filed a petition5 for declaration of

• petitioner filed a motion to dismiss

• petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was also denied.

• petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of

• On July 14, 1999, Judge Guevara-Salonga issued an order granting

• Private respondent filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer

• an Opposition to the Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed by the

• Petitioner filed a timely motion for reconsideration on October 19, 1999,

As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries

• a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the

On the matter of property relations, petitioner asserts that public respondent

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.