FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985

ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner,
vs.
HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX,
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and
RICHARD UPTON respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.- Ponente

FACTS:

 Petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United
States
 They were married in Hongkong in 1972
 After the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines
 That they begot two children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975,
 That the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982
 Petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
 Respondent filed suit against petitioner stating that petitioner’s business in the
Philippines is a conjugal property and asking to order petitioner to render an accounting
of that business and respondent be declared with the right to manage conjugal properties.
The lower court’s decision is in favor with respondent. And contends that divorce is
against in this jurisdiction and should not be acknowledged under Art. 17(3) of the Civil
Code.
 Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the court in Nevada during their
divorce proceedings estopped respondent for acknowledging that they don’t have any
community property with petitioner.

ISSUE: What will be the effect of divorce between the parties and their alleged properties?

RULING: The petition is granted

There is no question on the validity of divorce between the parties, as divorce is legal in Nevada.
Moreover, respondent is an American Citizen, applying the nationality principle, the decision
made in Nevada for their divorce would be valid in our jurisdiction. Furthermore, respondent
was estopped in the Nevada Court for asserting, the business of petitioner in the Philippines, it is
a conjugal properties. Hence, the order made in the lower court should be set aside. It would be
unjust for them to maintain their relationship and obligation as husband and wife.

The policy against divorce in applying Art 17 (3), which is contrary to our laws and public
policies, applies only to Philippine Citizens. Thus, respondent and petitioner is not bound from it.