Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RepvsMiIler To Lavadia
RepvsMiIler To Lavadia
) Republic vs Miller
G.R. No. 125932, 21 April 1999
Facts: Spouse Claude and Jumrus Miller, American citizens, filed a verified
petition to adopt the minor Micahel Madayag on July 29, 1988. On May 12,
1989 the trial court granted the petition. Solicitor General interposed an appeal
before the CA raising the issue whether the court may allow aliens to adopt a
Filipino child despite the prohibition under the Family Code, which became
effective only on August 3, 1988. As it involved a question of law, CA certified
the case before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the prohibition in the Family Code should be applied in a
petition which was filed earlier than the Family Codes effectivity.
Held: No. The enactment of Family Code will not affect spouses right because
the right has become vested at the time of the filing of the petition. A vested
right is one whose existence effectivity and extent does not depend upon events
foreign to the will of the holder. A vested right could not be affected by the
subsequent enactment of a new law disqualifying aliens from adopting.
D. Arts 15, 16, 17, 50, 51 (NCC); Art 26 FC; Rules 103/108; Civil Register
(407-413 NCC) Divorce, Art. 71, 119, 175, 144, Doctrine of Processual
Presumption; Sections 24, 25, Rule 132 RRC; RA 9225
With respect to her prayer to compel the DFA to issue her passport,
Petitioner should have first appeals before the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
under Section 9 of R.A. 8239.
***
5.) Noveras vs Noveras
G.R. No. 188289, 20 August 2014
Facts: David Noveras (David) and Leticia Noveras (Leticia) were married on 3
December 1988 in Quezon City. They resided in California, USA where they
acquire American citizenship. They then begot two children. During their
marriage, they acquired properties in the Philippines and in the USA. David was
engaged in courier service business while Leticia worked as a nurse. Due to
business reverses, David left the USA and returned to the Philippines in 2001.
In December 2002, Leticia executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing
David to sell the Sampaloc property for P2.2M.
Upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for
divorce with the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, USA. The
court granted the petition. It granted to Leticia the custody of her two children
as well as the couples properties in USA.Upon issuance of the decree, Leticia
filed a petition for judicial separation of conjugal property before RTC of Baler,
Aurora.
The trial court regarded the petition as petition for liquidation of property since
the marriage was already dissolved. It classified their property relation as
absolute community due to absence of marriage settlement before the
marriage. Then, the trial court ruled that in accordance with the doctrine of
processual presumption, Philippine law should apply becase the court cannot
take judicial notice of US law since the parties did not submit any proof of their
national law. The court awarded the properties in the Philippines to David,
subject to the payment of childrens legitimes.
Issues:
1.) Whether their marriage was dissolved.
2.) Whether the Philippine courts acquired jurisdiction over the California
properties.
Held:
1.) No. The Court quoted its decision in Corpuz vs Sto Tonas, where it
ruled: The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce
judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial
notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that,
as a rule, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a
judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country. This means that
the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under
our rules on evidence, together with the aliens applicable national law
to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herselfThe
requirements of presenting the foreign decree and the national law of
the foreigner must comply with our Rules of Evidence (Rule 132,
Sections 24-25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 b). Under Section 24
of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the record of public documents of a
foreign sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by: (1) an official
publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody thereof. Based on the records only, divorce decree was
presented in evidence. The required certificates to prove its
authenticity, as well as pertinent California law on divorce was not
presented. In this case, it appears that there is no seal from the office
where the divorce decree was obtained. Even if we apply the doctrine
of processual presumption, the recognition of divorce is entirely a
different matter because divorce is not recognized between Filipino
citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid recognition of the divorce
decree, it follows that the parties are still legally married in the
Philippines.
The Court then ruled that the petition for judicial separation of absolute
community of property should be granted, which in effect, dissolved the
absolute community regime. [See: Article 135 (5) and (6), Article 99 (4),
Family Code].
2.) No. Article 16 of the Civil Code states that the real property as well as
personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is
situated. Thus, in this case, liquidation shall only be limited to the
Philippine properties. (Under Article 102, liquidation follows the
dissolution of absolute community regime).
***