had "no community property" as of June 11,1982.

The Court below denied

No. L-68470, October 8, 1985. the Motion to Dismiss in the mentioned case on the ground that the
*

ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL V. property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree
ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of has no bearing in the case, The denial is now the subject of this Certiorari
the National Capital Region Pasay City, and RICHARD UPTON, proceeding.
respondents. Generally, the denial of a Motion to Dismiss in a civil case is
interlocutory and is not subject to appeal. Certiorari and Prohibition are
Certiorari; Denial of motion to dismiss may be the subject of a certiorari
proceeding in certain cases.—Generally, the denial of a Motion to Dismiss in a civil
neither the remedies to question the propriety of an interlocutory order of
case is interlocutory and is not subject to appeal. Certiorari and Prohibition are the trial Court. However, when a grave abuse of discretion was patently
neither the remedies to question the propriety of an interlocutory order of the trial committed, or the lower Court acted capriciously and whimsically, then it
Court. However, when a grave abuse of discretion was patently committed, or the devolves upon this Court in a certiorari proceeding to exercise its
lower Court acted capriciously and whimsically, then it devolves upon this Court in a supervisory authority and to correct the error committed which, in such a
certiorari proceeding to exercise its supervisory authority and to correct the error case, is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.  Prohibition would then lie since
1

committed which, in such a case, is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Prohibition it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the
would then lie since it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the
proceedings. We consider the petition filed in this case within the exception, and we
proceedings.  We consider the petition filed
2

________________
have given it due course.
Husband and Wife; Judgments; Marriages; Divorce; A divorce decree
granted by a U.S. Court between a Filipina and her American husband is binding on 1
 Sanchez vs. Zosa, 68 SCRA 171 (1975); Malit vs. People, 114 SCRA 348 (1982).
 U.S.T. vs. Hon. Villanueva, et al., 106 Phil. 439 (1959).
the American husband.—There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada
2

divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private
respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue 142
petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union. What he is contending in this
case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
contrary to local law and public policy. 2 ANNOTATED
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Absolute divorce obtained by an alien
abroad may be recognized in the Philippines if valid under the national law of such Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr.
an alien.—lt is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of in this case within the exception, and we have given it due course.
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 For resolution is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and
morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines.
the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim on
the divorce in Nevada the alleged conjugal property because of the representation he made in the
________________
divorce proceedings before the American Court that they had no
community of property; that the Galleon Shop was not established through
 FIRST DIVISION.
conjugal funds; and that respondent's claim is barred by prior judgment.
*

140
For his part, respondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued by the
Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines
and its declared national policy; that the acts and declaration of a foreign
1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Court cannot, especially if the same is contrary to public policy, divest
Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction.
40 ANNOTATED
For the resolution of this case, it is not necessary to determine
Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr. whether the property relations between petitioner and private respondent,
released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of after their marriage, were upon absolute or relative community property,
American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. upon complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. The
Same; Same; Same; Same; Estoppel; Actions; An American granted pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada divorce of the parties.
absolute divorce in his country with his Filipina wife is estopped from asserting his The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had obtained
rights over property allegedly held in the Philippines as conjugal property by him jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before the Court during
and his former wife.—Thus, 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 the trial of the case. It also obtained jurisdiction over private respondent
as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is who, giving his address as No. 381 Bush Street, San Francisco, California,
bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised authorized his attorneys in the divorce case, Karp & Gradt, Ltd., to agree
jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his to the divorce on the ground of incompatibility in the understanding that
own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged there were neither community property nor community obligations.  As 3

conjugal property. explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he executed in favor of the law
Same; Same; Same; Same; Succession; An American granted absolute firm of KARP & GRAD LTD., 336 W. Liberty, Reno, Nevada, to
divorce with Filipina wife is cut off from marital and successional rights with the
latter.—To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has represent him in the divorce proceedings:
to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's x x x                                              x x x
obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner "You are hereby authorized to accept service of Summons, to
________________
should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render
support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs
 Annex "Y", Petition for Certiorari.
with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in
3

her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.

143

PETITION for certiorari and prohibition to review the orders of the VOL. 139, OCTOBER 8, 1985 143
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Br. CX Romillo, Jr. J.
Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr.
file an Answer, appear on my behalf and do all things necessary and proper to
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. represent me, without farther contesting, subject to the following:

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: 1. "1.That my spouse seeks a divorce on the ground of incompatibility.

2. "2.That there is no community of property to be adjudicated by the
Court.
In this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner Alice Reyes Van
3. "3.That there are no community obligations to be adjudicated by the
Dorn seeks to set aside the Orders, dated September 15, 1983 and August court.
3, 1984, in Civil Case No. 1075-P, issued by respondent Judge, which
denied her Motion to Dismiss said case, and her Motion for
Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, respectively. x x x                                              x x x" 4

141
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of
VOL. 139, OCTOBER 8, 1985 141 the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent
Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr. as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue
The basic background facts are that petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union. What he is
while private respondent is a citizen of the United States; that they were contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this
married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the marriage, they established jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.
their residence in the Philippines; that they begot two children born on It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15
April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively; that the parties were of the Civil Code,  only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
5

divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re- against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our
married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain
Dated June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
Civil Case No. 1075-P of the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in Pasay they are valid according to their national law.  In this case, the divorce in 6

City, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards
Shop, for short), is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. As stated
petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that by the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs.
private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:
"The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action
of competent jurisdiction are to change the ex-
is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the ____________
Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner
 4
 p. 98, Rollo.
5
 "Art, 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad."
6
 cf. Recto vs. Harden, 100 Phil. 427 [1956]; Paras, Civil Code, 1971 ed., Vol. I, p. 52; Salonga, Private
International Law, 1979 ed., p. 231.

144

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

4 ANNOTATED
Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr.
isting status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the
bond. The marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A
husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When
the law provides, in the nature of a penalty, that the guilty party shall not marry again,
that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely freed from the bond of the former
marriage."

Thus, 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.
To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws,
petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still
subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code
cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with,
observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The
latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to
conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own
country if the ends of justice are to be served.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted, and respondent Judge is
hereby ordered to dismiss the Complaint filed in Civil Case No. 1075-P of
his Court.
Without costs.
SO ORDERED.
     Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la
Fuente and Patajo, JJ., concur.

Petition granted.