Van Dorn V Romillo

Van Dorn vs.
Romillo
139 SCRA 139 (1985)
Nature of the Case
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition: Petitioner Alice Reyes Van
Dorn seeks to set aside the Orders issued by respondent Judge,
which denied her Motion to Dismiss, and her Motion for
Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, respectively.
FACTS OF THE CASE
while private respondent is a citizen of the United
States
Petitioner Alice
FACTS: Reyes is a
citizen of the
Philippines
Respondent
Upton is a MARRIED IN
citizen of the HONGKONG IN 1972
United States
AFTER THE MARRIAGE
ESTABLISHED RESIDENCE
IN THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
In 1982, divorced in Nevada, U.S.
ALICE re-
married in
Nevada, this
time to
Theodore
Van Dorn.
States
FACTS:
• Private respondent filed a suit against petitioner in
RTC Pasay on June 8, 1983, stating that petitioner’s
business in Ermita Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a
conjugal property and prayed therein that Alice
be ordered to render an accounting of the business
and he be declared as the administrator of the said
property.
States
FACTS:
• Petitioner moved to dismiss the case contending

that the cause of action is barred by the
judgment in the divorce proceedings before the
Nevada Court wherein the respondent had
acknowledged that he and the petitioner had no
“common property” as of June 11, 1982.
States
FACTS:
• The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss on the

ground that the property involved is located in the
Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no
bearing in the case.
States
FACTS:
• The denial now is the subject of the certiorari

proceeding.
States
ISSUE:
Whether the divorce decree

should be recognized in this
jurisdiction?
States
RULING: YES
1. The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada divorce

of the parties
States
RULING:
To the petitioner who appeared in person before

the Court during the trial of the case
States
RULING:
To the respondent who:

- Gave his address in the Court.
- Authorized an Attorney in the divorce case.
States
RULING:
• As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he executed in favour of the

law firm to represent him in the divorce proceedings:
“You are hereby authorized to xxx xxx xxx , without further contesting, subject
to the following:
1. That my spouse seeks a divorce on the ground of incompatibility.
2. That there is no community of property to be adjudicated by the court.
3. That there are no community obligations to be adjudicated by the court. “
RULING:
3. No question to the validity of the Nevada Divorce in any of the

States of the US.
… because the decree is binding on the private respondent as an
American Citizen.
States
RULING:
What he is contending is that the

divorce is not valid and binding in this
jurisdiction, the same being contrary to
local law and policy.
States
RULING:
• Is it 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.
States
RULING:
• However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may

be recognized in the Philippines, PROVIDED they are
valid according to their national law.
States
RULING:
• The divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the
marriage from the standards of American Law.
RULING:
• As stated by the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in

Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:
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. When the law
provides, in the nature of a penalty. that the guilty party shall not marry again,
that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely freed from the bond of the
former marriage.
RULING:
Have no standing to sue
Not entitled to exercise control over

conjugal assets
States
RULING:
Respondent is bound by the decision of
his own Country’s Court.
Validly exercised jurisdiction over him,
whose decision he does not repudiate.
He is estopped by his own representation

before the Court from asserting his right over
the alleged conjugal property
States
RULING:
The respondent should not

continue to be one of petitioner’s
heir with possible rights to
conjugal property.
States
RULING:
Petitioner is not bound to her marital

obligations to respondent by virtue of
her nationality laws.
States
RULING:
She should not be discriminated

against her own country if the end of
justice is to be served.
States
THANK YOU

Van Dorn V Romillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Van Dorn V Romillo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Van Dorn V Romillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Van Dorn vs.

• Petitioner moved to dismiss the case contending

• The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss on the

• The denial now is the subject of the certiorari

Whether the divorce decree

1. The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada divorce

To the petitioner who appeared in person before

To the respondent who:

• As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he executed in favour of the

3. No question to the validity of the Nevada Divorce in any of the

What he is contending is that the

• Is it true that owing to the nationality principle embodied

• However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may

• As stated by the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in

Not entitled to exercise control over

Validly exercised jurisdiction over him,

whose decision he does not repudiate.

He is estopped by his own representation

The respondent should not

Petitioner is not bound to her marital

She should not be discriminated

You might also like

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