ALICE REYES VAN DORN,

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.

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

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

Image result for marriage divorceFacts:

Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is
a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972 and established their residence in
the Philippines. They begot two children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively. But
the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982 and the petitioner had remarried also in
Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

On July 8, 1983, Richard Upton filed a suit against petitioner, asking that Alice Van Dorn be ordered to
render an accounting of her business in Ermita, Manila and be declared with right to manage the
conjugal property.

Issue:

Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in Nevada is binding
in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

Held:

As to Richard Upton, the divorce is binding on him as an American Citizen. Owing to the nationality
principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and
morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines,
provided they are valid according to their national law. The divorce is likewise valid as to the petitioner.
As such, pursuant to his national law, private respondent Richard Upton is no longer the husband of
petitioner. He would have no standing to sue Alice Van Dorn to exercise control over conjugal assets. He
was bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and
whose decision he did not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from
asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

Source:

Van Dorn v Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985. Retrieved from:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/gr_154380_2005.html.

By:

JOY G. DE LOYOLA

Laguna State Polytechnic University – Sta.Cruz, Laguna

Share this:

TwitterFacebook

Related

Related image

CASE DIGEST – ARTICLE 80, FAMILY CODE – Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. and Upton

November 2, 2017

In “CASE DIGEST”

CASE DIGEST – Pilapil v Ibay-Somera

Effect if Filipino obtains divorce against a foreigner spouse: CASE DIGEST – Article 26 IMELDA
MANALAYSAY PILAPIL, petitioner, vs. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in his capacity as the City Fiscal of
Manila;…
October 2, 2017

In “ASSIGNMENT”

Image result for law legal marriage license

CASE DIGEST – ARTICLE 16, FAMILY CODE – Filipina Sy v. CA

October 24, 2017

In “CASE DIGEST”

ASSIGNMENT

Post navigation

← CASE DIGEST – Republic v Orbecido IIIARTICLE 16 of the FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.