DOCTRINE:

A divorce decree issued by a foreign court dissolves the marriage. 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.

FACTS:

Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a Filipina Citizen while Richard Upton is a US Citizen. In 1972, they were married in Hongkong, established their residence in the Philippines, and begot two children. In 1982, they were divorced in Nevada, US. Also, Alice remarried in Nevada to Theodore Van Dorn.

In 1983, Richard filed suit against Alice in the RTC, stating the latter’s Galleon Shop business in Ermita, Manila was conjugal property of the parties, and asking 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 was barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein Richard had acknowledged that both parties had “no community property” as of June 11, 1982. 

The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the property involved was located in the Philippines. As such, the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case. Hence, Alice questioned the denial via certiorari before the Supreme Court. 

Alice’s contentions:

• Richard is estopped from laying claim 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; 
• That the Galleon Shop was not established through conjugal funds; and 
• That Richard’s claim is barred by prior judgment.

Richard’s averments:

• The Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy; 
• That 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:

Can Richard still file a suit against Alice on the alleged conjugal property despite the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court?

RULING:

NO. RICHARD HAD NO STANDING TO SUE ALICE ON THE ALLEGED CONJUGAL PROPERTY. 

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 they are valid according to their national law.

In this case, the divorce in Nevada released Richard from the marriage in the standards of American law, under which DIVORCE DISSOLVES THE MARRIAGE. 

In 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.

Thus, pursuant to his NATIONAL LAW, RICHARD IS NO LONGER THE HUSBAND OF ALICE. He would have no standing to sue in the case as Alice’s husband is 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.