Recto vs Harden

Facts:

- Mrs. Harden hired Claro M. Recto as her counsel in case against Mr. Harden. This case was
instituted to secure an increase in the amount of support she was receiving in contemplation of a
divorce suit she intends to file against him.
- Mrs. Harden agreed to pay Recto 20% of the value of her share of the conjugal partnership after
liquidation.
- The lower court ruled in favor of Mrs. Harden. Pending appeal, however, the Hardens mutually
released and forever discharged each other from all actions, debts, duties, and claims to the
conjugal partnership.
- Recto then filed a motion and alleged that the purpose of the aforesaid instrument was to defeat
his claim of attorneys fees. The Hardens moved to dismiss on the ground of the invalidity of the
contract between Mrs. Harden and Recto for the reason that was to secure a divorce decree in
violation of PH laws.

Issue: W/N the contract between Mrs. Harden and Recto is valid? YES

Ratio:

- The purpose of the contract was not to secure, facilitate or promote the procurement of a divorce.
It merely sought to protect the interest of Mrs. Harden in the conjugal partnership, during the
pendency of a divorce suit she intended to file in the US.
- Inasmuch as the Hardens are US citizens, their status and the dissolution thereof are governed
by, pursuant to Article 9 of the Spanish Civil Code and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the laws of the United States which sanction divorce. As such, the contract is not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.