You are on page 1of 2

G.R. no. 168785 February 05, 2010 Dacasin v. Dacasin Herald Black Dacasin, petitioner vs.

Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin , respondent I. FACTS:

On April 1994, petitioner and respondent got married here in the Philippines. The following year respondent got pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl whom they named Stephanie. In June of 1999 respondent sought and obtained from the Illinois Court a divorce decree against petitioner. In its ruling, the Illinois court dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent, awarded to respondent sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes. On 28th of January 2002, petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie. Two years after, petitioner sued respondent in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Petitioner claimed that respondent exercised sole custody over Stephanie. Respondent sought the dismissal of the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, since Illinois Court hold the jurisdiction in enforcing the divorce decree. I. ISSUE: Whether the Trial Court have the jurisdiction over the case Whether the agreement or contract is valid I. HELD: Case was dismissed dated March 1, 2005. Courts Rationale: o It is precluded from taking cognizance over suit considering the Illinois Courts retention of jurisdiction to enforce its divorce decree, including its order awarding sole custody of Stephanie to respondent o The divorce decree is binding on petitioner following the nationality rule prevailing in this jurisdiction Agreement is void o The agreement is void for contravening Article 2035 paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction.

II.

FACTS:

Petitioner sought reconsideration his new argument is that the divorce decree obtained by respondent is void. Thus, the divorce is no bar to the trial courts exercise of jurisdiction over the case. In its order on June 23, 2005, the trial court denied reconsideration because petitioner is under the laws of his nationality, which is American. Hence, the petitioner filed alternative theories for the validity of the agreement:

> The agreement noted the valid divorce decree, modifying the terms of child custody from the sole to joint > The agreement is independent of the divorce decree obtained by respondents II. ISSUE Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioners suit Whether the trial curt can enforce the Agreement on joint custody II. HELD Agreement is still void but the court calls for the remand of the case to settle Stephanies custody. (Article 213 of the Family Code lost its coverage over Stephanie. Stephanie was already almost 15 during this time thus, she is entitled to choose to whom she want to be)

Instead of dismissing the case, court chose to remand the case in order to settle Stephanies custody. Court decided to REVERSE the orders dated March 1, 2005 and June 23, 2005. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

***Guys kindly read the Articles mentioned na lang they are found in the Civil Code of the Phils. Art. 213 of the Family Code, page 631 Art. 2035 of Compromises and Arbitrations, page 480 ---Sorry if may error