Close Reader

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 404

Information | Reference

Case Title:
WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner,
vs. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ,
HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA- VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 495
SALONGA, Presiding Judge of Makati
Roehr vs. Rodriguez
RTC, Branch 149, respondents.
Citation: 404 SCRA 495 *

More... G.R. No. 142820. June 20, 2003.

WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, vs. MARIA CARMEN D.

Search Result RODRIGUEZ, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA,
Presiding Judge of Makati RTC, Branch 149, respondents.

Civil Law; Family Code; Marriages; Nullity of Marriage; Judgments;

Foreign Judgment; The court could modify or alter a judgment even after
the same has become executory.·The court could modify or alter a
judgment even after the same has become executory whenever
circumstances transpire rendering its decision unjust and inequitable, as
where certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring such
modification or altera-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

496

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roehr vs. Rodriguez

tion transpired after the judgment has become final and executory and
when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when
supervening events warrant it.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Before the courts can give the
effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, it must be shown that the
parties opposed to the judgment have been given ample opportunity to do so
on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court.·As a
general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are
recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, e.g. on
custody, care and support of the children, must still be determined by our
courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign
judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner by the German court,
it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given
ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50
of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A foreign judgment merely
constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party.·It is
essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign
judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine
its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide that
with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem,
a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness
of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Manuel C. Moyco for petitioner.
Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar for private respondent.

QUISUMBING, J.:

At the core of the present controversy are issues of (a) grave abuse
of discretion allegedly committed by public respondent and (b) lack
of jurisdiction of the regional trial court, in matters that spring
from a divorce decree obtained abroad by petitioner.
In 1this special civil action for certiorari, petitioner assails (a) the
order dated September 30, 1999 of public respondent Judge
Josefina Guevara-Salonga, Presiding Judge of Makati Regional
Trial

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 15.

497

VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 497

Roehr vs. Rodriguez

2
Court, Branch 149, in Civil Case No. 96-13893
for declaration of
nullity of marriage, and (b) the order dated March 31, 2000
denying his motion for reconsideration. The assailed orders
partially set aside the trial courtÊs order dismissing Civil Case No.
96-1389, for the purpose of resolving issues relating to the property
settlement of the spouses and the custody of their children.
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen and resident of
Germany, married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a
Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Hamburg, Germany. Their
marriage was subsequently 4
ratified on February 14, 1981 in
Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union were born Carolynne
and Alexandra Kristine on November 18, 1981 and October 25,
1987, respectively. 5
On August 28, 1996, private respondent filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati
6
City. On February 6, 1997, petitioner filed a 7motion
to dismiss, but it was denied by the trial court in its order dated
May 28, 1997.
On June 5, 1997, petitioner filed8 a motion for reconsideration,
but was also denied in an order dated August 13, 1997. On
September 5, 1997, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals. On November 27, 1998, the appellate court denied
the petition and remanded the case to the RTC.
Meanwhile, petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the
Court of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese, promulgated on
December 16, 1997. The decree provides in part:

[T]he Court of First Instance, Hamburg-Blankenese, Branch 513, has

ruled through Judge van Buiren of the Court of First Instance on the basis
of the oral proceedings held on 4 Nov. 1997:
The marriage of the Parties contracted on 11 December 1980 before the
Civil Registrar of Hamburg-Altona is hereby dissolved.

_______________

2 Judge Josefina Guevara-Salonga signed as Executive Judge.

3 Rollo, p. 16.
4 Records, pp. 5-6.

5 Id., at pp. 1-4.

6 Id., at pp. 19-28.

7 Id., at p. 147.

8 Id., at p. 165.
 498

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roehr vs. Rodriguez

The parental custody for the children

Carolynne Roehr, born 18 November 1981
Alexandra Kristine Roehr, born on 25 October 1987
is granted to the father. 9
The litigation expenses shall be assumed by the Parties.

In view of said decree, petitioner filed a Second Motion to Dismiss

on May 20, 1999 on the ground that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or suit as a decree
of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage of
petitioner and private respondent.
On July 14, 1999, Judge Guevara-Salonga issued an order
granting petitionerÊs motion to dismiss. Private respondent filed a
Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer that the case
proceed for the purpose of determining the issues of custody of
children and the distribution of the properties between petitioner
and private respondent.
On August 18, 1999, an Opposition to the Motion for Partial
Reconsideration was filed by the petitioner on the ground that there
is nothing to be done anymore in the instant case as the marital tie
between petitioner Wolfgang Roehr and respondent Ma. Carmen D.
Rodriguez had already been severed by the decree of divorce
promulgated by the Court of First Instance of Hamburg, Germany
on December 16, 1997 and in view of the fact that said decree of
divorce had already been recognized by the RTC in its order of July
14, 1999, through the10
implementation of the mandate of Article 26
of the Family Code, endowing the petitioner with the capacity to
remarry under the Philippine law.

_______________

9 Rollo, p. 33.
10 Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with
the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as
such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35
(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity
to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by E.O. No. 227, dated July 17,
1987.)

499

VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 499

Roehr vs. Rodriguez

On September 30, 1999, respondent judge issued the assailed order

partially setting aside her order dated July 14, 1999 for the purpose
of tackling the issues of property relations of the spouses as well as
support and custody of their children. The pertinent portion of said
order provides:

Acting on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order dated July
14, 1999 filed by petitioner thru counsel which was opposed by respondent
and considering that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code was included as an amendment thru Executive Order 227, to avoid
the absurd situation of a Filipino as being still married to his or her alien
spouse though the latter is no longer married to the Filipino spouse
because he/she had obtained a divorce abroad which is recognized by
his/her national law, and considering further the effects of the termination
of the marriage under Article 43 in relation to Article 50 and 52 of the same
Code, which include the dissolution of the property relations of the spouses,
and the support and custody of their children, the Order dismissing this
case is partially set aside with respect to these matters which may be
ventilated in this Court.
11
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner filed a timely motion for reconsideration on October 19,

1999, which was 12
denied by respondent judge in an order dated
March 31, 2000.
Petitioner ascribes lack of jurisdiction of the trial court and grave
abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge. He cites as
grounds for his petition the following:

1. PARTIALLY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED JULY

14, 1999 DISMISSING THE INSTANT CASE IS 13NOT
ALLOWED BY 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
2. RESPONDENT MARIA CARMEN RODRIGUEZ BY HER
MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION HAD
RECOGNIZED AND ADMITTED THE DIVORCE
DECISION OBTAINED14 BY HER EXHUSBAND IN
HAMBURG, GERMANY.
3. THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO BE TACKLED BY THE
HONORABLE COURT AS THERE ARE NO CONJUGAL
ASSETS ALLEGED

_______________

11 Supra, note 1.
12 Supra, note 3.
13 Rollo, p. 6.

14 Id., at p. 8.

500

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roehr vs. Rodriguez

IN THE PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE

AND IN THE DIVORCE PETITION, AND THE CUSTODY
OF THE CHILDREN HAD ALREADY 15BEEN AWARDED
TO PETITIONER WOLFGANG ROEHR.

Pertinent in this case before us are the following issues:

1. Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her

discretion in issuing her order dated September 30, 1999,
which partially modified her order dated July 14, 1999; and
2. Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her
discretion when she assumed and retained jurisdiction over
the present case despite the fact that petitioner has already
obtained a divorce decree from a German court.

On the first issue, petitioner asserts that the assailed order of

respondent judge is completely inconsistent with her previous order
and is contrary to Section 3, Rule 16, Rules of Civil Procedure,
which provides:

Sec. 3. Resolution of motion.·After the hearing, the court may dismiss the
action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that
the ground relied upon is not indubitable.
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the
reasons therefor. (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner avers that a courtÊs action on a motion is limited to

dismissing the action or claim, denying the motion, or ordering the
amendment of the pleading.
Private respondent, on her part, argues that the RTC can validly
reconsider its order dated July 14, 1999 because it had not yet
attained finality, given the timely filing of respondentÊs motion for
reconsideration.
Pertinent to this issue is Section 3 in relation to Section 7, Rule
37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

Sec. 3. Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration.·The trial

court may set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial,
upon such terms as may be just, or may deny the motion. If the court finds

_______________

15 Ibid.

501

VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 501

Roehr vs. Rodriguez

that excessive damages have been awarded or that the judgment or final
order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend such judgment or
final order accordingly.
Sec. 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration.·If the grounds for a motion
under this Rule appear to the court to affect the issues as to only a part, or
less than all of the matters in controversy, or only one, or less than all, of
the parties to it, the court may order a new trial or grant reconsideration as
to such issues if severable without interfering with the judgment or final
order upon the rest. (Emphasis supplied.)

It is clear from the foregoing rules that a judge can order a partial
reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality.
Considering that private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration within the reglementary period, the trial courtÊs
decision of July 14, 1999 can still be modified. Moreover, in Sañado
16
v. Court of Appeals, we held that the court could modify or alter a
judgment even after the same has become executory whenever
circumstances transpire rendering its decision unjust and
inequitable, as where certain facts and circumstances justifying or
requiring such modification or alteration17 transpired after the
judgment has become final and executory and when it becomes
imperative in the 18higher interest of justice or when supervening
events warrant it. In our view, there are even more compelling
reasons to do so when, as in this case, judgment has not yet
attained finality.
Anent the second issue, petitioner claims that respondent judge
committed grave abuse of discretion when she partially set aside
her order dated July 14, 1999, despite the fact that petitioner has
already obtained a divorce decree from the Court of First Instance
of Hamburg, Germany.19 20
In Garcia v. Recio, Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., and Llorente v.
21
Court of Appeals, we consistently held that a divorce obtained
abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided
such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.

_______________

16 G.R. No. 108338, 17 April 2001, 356 SCRA 546, 561.

17 David v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115821, 13 October 1999, 316 SCRA 710,
719.
18 People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, 29 September 1999, 315 SCRA 461, 463.
19 G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001, 366 SCRA 437, 447.
20 No. L-68470, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 139, 143.

21 G.R. No. 124371, 23 November 2000, 345 SCRA 592, 601.

502
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Roehr vs. Rodriguez

22
Relevant to the present case is Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, where this
Court specifically recognized the validity of a divorce obtained by a
German citizen in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. We
held in Pilapil that a foreign divorce and its legal effects may be
recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in
view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of
persons.
In this case, the divorce decree issued by the German court dated
December 16, 1997 has not been challenged by either of the parties.
In fact, save for the issue of parental custody, even the trial court
recognized said decree to be valid and binding, thereby endowing
private respondent the capacity to remarry. Thus, the present
controversy mainly relates to the award of the custody of their two
children, Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine, to petitioner.
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other
countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects
thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still
23
be determined by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect
of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody
to petitioner by the German court, it must be shown that the
parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity
to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules
of Court (now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), to
wit:

SEC. 50. Effect of foreign judgments.·The effect of a judgment of a

tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the
judgment is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is

conclusive upon the title to the thing;
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may
be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to
the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

_______________

22 G.R. No. 80116, 30 June 1989, 174 SCRA 653, 663.

23 Llorente v. Court of Appeals, supra at 602.

503

VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 503

Roehr vs. Rodriguez

It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the

foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to
properly determine its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of
Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in personam, as
distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely
constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a
24
party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.
In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent
was given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German
court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment as res
judicata with regard to the rights of petitioner to have parental
custody of their two children. The proceedings in the German court
were summary. As to what was the extent of private respondentÊs
participation in the proceedings in the German court, the records
remain unclear. The divorce decree itself states that neither has she
 25
commented on the proceedings 26
nor has she given her opinion to
the Social Services Office. Unlike petitioner who was represented
by two lawyers, private
27
respondent had no counsel to assist her in
said proceedings. More importantly, the divorce judgment was
issued to petitioner by virtue of the German Civil Code provision to
the effect that when a couple lived separately for three years, the
marriage is deemed irrefutably dissolved. The decree did not touch
on the issue as to who the offending spouse was. Absent any finding
that private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the children,
the trial court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to
determine the issue of parental custody, care, support and
education mindful of the best interests of the children. This is in
consonance with the provision in the Child and Youth Welfare Code
that the childÊs welfare is always the paramount
28
consideration in all
questions concerning his care and custody.

_______________

24 Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, 19 June

1997, 274 SCRA 102, 110.

25 Rollo, p. 57.

26 Ibid.

27 Id., at pp. 55-56.

28 Sagala-Eslao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116773, 16 January 1997, 266

SCRA 317, 321, citing Art. 8, P.D. No. 603, The Child and Youth Welfare Code.

504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roehr vs. Rodriguez

On the matter of property relations, petitioner asserts that public

respondent exceeded the bounds of her jurisdiction when she
claimed cognizance of the issue concerning property relations
between petitioner and private respondent. Private respondent
herself has admitted in Par. 14 of her petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage dated August 26, 1996 filed with the RTC of
Makati, subject of this case, that: „[p]etitioner and respondent have
not acquired any conjugal or community property29
nor have they
incurred any debts during their marriage.‰ Herein petitioner did
not contest this averment. Basic is the rule that 30a court shall grant
relief warranted by the allegations and the proof. Given the factual
admission by the parties in their pleadings that there is no property
to be accounted for, respondent judge has no basis to assert
jurisdiction in this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in
controversy.
In sum, we find that respondent judge may proceed to determine
the issue regarding the custody of the two children born of the
union between petitioner and private respondent. Private
respondent erred, however, in claiming cognizance to settle the
matter of property relations of the parties, which is not at issue.
WHEREFORE, the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 149, issued on September 30, 1999 and March 31, 2000 are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. We hereby declare that the
trial court has jurisdiction over the issue between the parties as to
who has parental custody, including the care, support and education
of the children, namely Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine Roehr.
Let the records of this case be remanded promptly to the trial court
for continuation of appropriate proceedings. No pronouncement as
to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo (Chairman) and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

_______________

Art. 8. ChildÊs Welfare Paramount.·In all questions regarding the care,

 custody, education and property of the child, his welfare shall be the paramount
consideration.
29 Rollo, p. 19.

30 JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124293, 20

November 2000, 345 SCRA 143, 154.

505

VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 505

Lanzaderas vs. Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc.

Austria-Martinez, J., On official leave.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Note.·A divorce decree does not ipso facto clothe a divorcee

with the legal capacity to remarry·he must still adduce sufficient
evidence to show the foreign stateÊs personal law governing his
status, or at the very least, he should still prove his legal capacity to
contract the second marriage. (Garcia vs. Recio, 366 SCRA 437
[2001])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2010 CentralBooks Inc. All rights reserved.