Scribd
Upload
354 views1 page

Van Dorn Vs Romillo

The document discusses a case involving a divorce between a Filipino woman and an American man who were married in Hong Kong. They established residence in the Philippines and had two children together. The man later filed for and obtained a divorce in Nevada, United States. He then filed a lawsuit in the Philippines claiming rights over the woman's business property in Manila, arguing it was part of their conjugal assets. The woman argued the divorce proceedings in Nevada barred this lawsuit. The court held that owing to the nationality principle in Philippine law, the American divorce is valid and binding for the American spouse according to his national law, so he no longer has standing to claim conjugal property rights over his former wife in the Philippines.

Uploaded by

joalgealon
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
354 views1 page

Van Dorn Vs Romillo

The document discusses a case involving a divorce between a Filipino woman and an American man who were married in Hong Kong. They established residence in the Philippines and had two children together. The man later filed for and obtained a divorce in Nevada, United States. He then filed a lawsuit in the Philippines claiming rights over the woman's business property in Manila, arguing it was part of their conjugal assets. The woman argued the divorce proceedings in Nevada barred this lawsuit. The court held that owing to the nationality principle in Philippine law, the American divorce is valid and binding for the American spouse according to his national law, so he no longer has standing to claim conjugal property rights over his former wife in the Philippines.

Uploaded by

joalgealon
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Van Dorn vs Romillo 139 scra 139 Nationality Principle Divorce FACTS: Petitioner Alice Reyes is a citizen of the

e Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States; they were married in Hongkong. Thereafter, they established their residence in the Philippines and begot two children. Subsequently, they were divorced in Nevada, United States, and that petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. Private respondent filed suit against petitioner, stating that petitioners business in Manila is their conjugal property; that petitioner he ordered to render accounting of the business and that private respondent be declared to manage the conjugal property. 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. The denial now is the subject of the certiorari proceeding. ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce obtained by the parties is binding only to the alien spouse. HELD: 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. 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 private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American Law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioners husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the decision of his own countrys court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is stopped by his own representation before said court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

You might also like