Van Dorn v. Hon. Romillo, Jr.
G.R. No. L-68470, 8 October 1985
FACTS:
Alice Reyes Van Dorn (petitioner) is a citizen of the Philippines while Richard Upton (private
respondent) is a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972 and
after the marriage; they established their residence in the Philippines. They begot two
children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively. The parties were
divorced in Nevada, United States in 1982 and petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this
time to Theodore Van Dorn.
Dated June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner stating that petitioner’s
business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop, for short), is conjugal property of the parties.
Respondent asked petitioner is ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that
private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved
to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in
the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged
that he and petitioner had “no community property” as of June 11, 1982. The Court denied
the Motion to Dismiss in the mentioned case on the ground that the property involved is
located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.
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.
RULING:
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the
United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. Pursuant
to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have
no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over
conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly
exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by
his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal
property.
The Court held that 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 police and morality. However, aliens may obtain
divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private
respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce
dissolves the marriage.
Aznar and Christensen v. Garcia
G.R. No. L-16749, 31 January 1963
FACTS:
Edward E. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California, where he resided
and consequently was considered a California citizen. In 1913, he came to the Philippines
where he became a domiciliary until his death. However, during the entire period of his
residence in this country he had always considered himself a citizen of California. In his will
executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy
Christensen as his only heir, but left a legacy of sum of money in favor of Helen Christensen
Garcia who was rendered to have been declared acknowledged natural daughter.
Counsel for appellant claims that California law should be applied; that under California law,
the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile; that therefore Philippine law is
ultimately applicable; that finally, the share of Helen must be increased in view of the
successional rights of illegitimate children under Philippine law. On the other hand, counsel
for the heir of Christensen contends that inasmuch as it is clear that under Article 16 of our
Civil Code, the national law of the deceased must apply, our courts must immediately apply
the internal law of California on the matter; that under California law there are no compulsory
heirs and consequently a testator could dispose of any property possessed by him in
absolute dominion and that finally, illegitimate children not being entitled to anything and his
will remain undisturbed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine law should prevail in administering the estate of Christensen?
RULING:
The court in deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen said in effect that there are
two rules in California on the matter: the internal law which should apply to Californians
domiciled in California; and the conflict rule which should apply to Californians domiciled
outside of California. The California conflict rule says: “If there is no law to the contrary in the
place where personal property is situated, is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is
governed by the law of his domicile.” Christensen being domiciled outside California, the law
of his domicile, the Philippines, ought to be followed.
ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country where said property may be found.
There is no single American law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the
United States, each state of the Union having its own private law applicable to its citizens
only and in force only within the state. The “national law” indicated in Article 16 of the Civil
Code above quoted can not, therefore, possibly mean or apply to any general American law.
So it can refer to no other than the private law of the State of California.