Van Dorn vs.

CA 139 SCRA 139 Facts: The petitioner is a Filipino citizen while respondent Romillo is an American citizen. They married in Hong Kong in 1972 and after their marriage, established a residence in the Philippines. The parties were divorced in Nevada in 1982 and now, petitioner is married to Theodore Van Dorn. Respondent Romillo, Jr. Filed a suit against petitioner in RTC Pasay stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita, Manila is conjugal property of the parties and that the petitioner ordered to render an accounting of that business and that the private respondent be declared with a right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the case of the action is barred of the judgment in the divorce proceeding in the Nevada Court wherein the respondent had acknowledged that he and the petitioner had no “common property” as of June 11, 1982. Issue: Whether there is an effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines. Held: It is not necessary to determine the property relations between petitioner and private respondent after their marriage, whether absolute or relative community property, complete separation of property or any other regime. The pivotal fact in this case is that the Nevada divorce of the parties that the Nevada Court obtained jurisdiction over the petitioner and private respondent.