Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    Case Digest-Van Dorn v. Romillo, JR

    Uploaded by

    Julie Mae Lagare
    1) Alicia Reyes Van Dorn (Filipino citizen) and Richard Upton (US citizen) were married in 1972 in Hong Kong and established residence in the Philippines, having two children. 2) In 1982, they divorced in Nevada, US. Van Dorn then remarried in Nevada. 3) In 1983, Upton filed a case in the Philippines asking for an accounting of Van Dorn's business and right to manage conjugal property. 4) The court ruled that the Nevada divorce decree was valid and binding for Upton as a US citizen, so he had no legal standing to make claims as Van Dorn's husband in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest-Van Dorn v. Romillo, JR

    Uploaded by

    Julie Mae Lagare
    77 views2 pages
    1) Alicia Reyes Van Dorn (Filipino citizen) and Richard Upton (US citizen) were married in 1972 in Hong Kong and established residence in the Philippines, having two children. 2) In 1982, they divorced in Nevada, US. Van Dorn then remarried in Nevada. 3) In 1983, Upton filed a case in the Philippines asking for an accounting of Van Dorn's business and right to manage conjugal property. 4) The court ruled that the Nevada divorce decree was valid and binding for Upton as a US citizen, so he had no legal standing to make claims as Van Dorn's husband in the Philippines.

    Original Title

    Case Digest-Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Alicia Reyes Van Dorn (Filipino citizen) and Richard Upton (US citizen) were married in 1972 in Hong Kong and established residence in the Philippines, having two children. 2) In 1982, they divorced in Nevada, US. Van Dorn then remarried in Nevada. 3) In 1983, Upton filed a case in the Philippines asking for an accounting of Van Dorn's business and right to manage conjugal property. 4) The court ruled that the Nevada divorce decree was valid and binding for Upton as a US citizen, so he had no legal standing to make claims as Van Dorn's husband in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views2 pages

    Case Digest-Van Dorn v. Romillo, JR

    Uploaded by

    Julie Mae Lagare
    1) Alicia Reyes Van Dorn (Filipino citizen) and Richard Upton (US citizen) were married in 1972 in Hong Kong and established residence in the Philippines, having two children. 2) In 1982, they divorced in Nevada, US. Van Dorn then remarried in Nevada. 3) In 1983, Upton filed a case in the Philippines asking for an accounting of Van Dorn's business and right to manage conjugal property. 4) The court ruled that the Nevada divorce decree was valid and binding for Upton as a US citizen, so he had no legal standing to make claims as Van Dorn's husband in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JULIE MAE M. LAGARE SECTION: 1.

    5A
    SUBJECT TITLE: PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
    FACULTY: JUDGE RONALD S. TOLENTINO

    CASE DIGEST

    Van Dorn vs. Romillo


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

    Facts:
    Petitioner Alicia Reyes Van Dorn, a citizen of the Philippines and private respondent
    Richard Upton, a citizen of the United States were married in 1972 in Hongkong. They
    established their residence in the Philippines and had two children. In 1982, they got divorced in
    Nevada, United States. The petitioner has then re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore
    Van Dorn.

    On July 8, 1983, private respondent filed a case against the petitioner, asking that the
    petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of her business in Ermita, Manila, and be
    acknowledged with the right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner filed a motion to
    dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgement in the
    divorce proceeding before Nevada Court where respondent acknowledged that they had no
    community property. The lower court presided by Judge Manuel Romillo, Jr. denied the motion
    to dismiss on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines, that the Divorce
    Decree in the United States has no bearing in the case. Respondent asserted that the Divorce
    Decree in the United States cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines. The
    denial of the MTD was the subject of the certiorari proceeding.

    Issue:
    1. Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in
    Nevada is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
    2. Whether or not Richard Upton may assert his right on conjugal properties.

    Held:
    The focal fact in this case is the divorce of the parties in Nevada, USA.

    There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the State of
    the United States. The decree is also binding on private respondent as an American citizen. What
    he is contending in this case is that their divorce in Nevada is not valid and binding in this
    jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.

    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 policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain
    divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided that they are binding
    according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent
    from the marriage according to the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves
    the marriage.

    Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of the
    petitioner. He would have no legal standing/locus standi to sue in the case below as petitioner’s
    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.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy