Republic of the Philippines of the parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an

SUPREME COURT accounting of that business, and that private respondent be

Manila declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action
FIRST DIVISION 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.
G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985
The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss in the mentioned
case on the ground that the property involved is located in the
ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner,  Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.
vs. The denial is now the subject of this certiorari proceeding.
HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of
Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital
Generally, the denial of a Motion to Dismiss in a civil case is
Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTON respondents.
interlocutory and is not subject to appeal. certiorari and Prohibition
are neither the remedies to question the propriety of an
interlocutory order of the trial Court. However, when a grave
abuse of discretion was patently committed, or the lower Court
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:\ acted capriciously and whimsically, then it devolves upon this
Court in a certiorari proceeding to exercise its supervisory
In this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner Alice Reyes authority and to correct the error committed which, in such a case,
Van Dorn seeks to set aside the Orders, dated September 15, is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 1 Prohibition would then lie
1983 and August 3, 1984, in Civil Case No. 1075-P, issued by since it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the
respondent Judge, which denied her Motion to Dismiss said case, proceedings. 2 Weconsider the petition filed in this case within the
and her Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, exception, and we have given it due course.
respectively.
For resolution is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties
The basic background facts are that petitioner is a citizen of the and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines.
Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United
States; that they were married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim
marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines; that on the alleged conjugal property because of the representation he
they begot two children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, made in the divorce proceedings before the American Court that
1975, respectively; that the parties were divorced in Nevada, they had no community of property; that the Galleon Shop was
United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re-married also in not established through conjugal funds, and that respondent's
Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. claim is barred by prior judgment.

Dated June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against For his part, respondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued by
petitioner in Civil Case No. 1075-P of the Regional Trial Court, the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the
Branch CXV, in Pasay City, stating that petitioner's business in Philippines and its declared national policy; that the acts and
Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop, for short), is conjugal property declaration of a foreign Court cannot, especially if the same is
contrary to public policy, divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to xxx xxx xxx 4
entertain matters within its jurisdiction.
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce
For the resolution of this case, it is not necessary to determine in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on
whether the property relations between petitioner and private private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private
respondent, after their marriage, were upon absolute or relative respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of
community property, upon complete separation of property, or the Union. What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is
upon any other regime. The pivotal fact in this case is the not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary
Nevada divorce of the parties. to local law and public policy.

The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article
obtained jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person 15 of the Civil Code, 5 only Philippine nationals are covered by the
before the Court during the trial of the case. It also obtained policy against absolute divorces the same being considered
jurisdiction over private respondent who, giving his address as contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However,
No. 381 Bush Street, San Francisco, California, authorized his aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in
attorneys in the divorce case, Karp & Gradt Ltd., to agree to the the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national
divorce on the ground of incompatibility in the understanding that law. 6 In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private
there were neither community property nor community respondent from the marriage from the standards of American
obligations. 3 As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. As stated by
executed in favor of the law firm of KARP & GRAD LTD., 336 W. the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs.
Liberty, Reno, Nevada, to represent him in the divorce Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:
proceedings:
The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce
xxx xxx xxx from the bond of matrimony by a court of
competent jurisdiction are to change the existing
You are hereby authorized to accept service of status or domestic relation of husband and wife,
Summons, to file an Answer, appear on my behalf and to free them both from the bond. The
and do an things necessary and proper to marriage tie when thus severed as to one party,
represent me, without further contesting, subject ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife,
to the following: 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,
1. That my spouse seeks a divorce on the ground
that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely
of incompatibility.
freed from the bond of the former marriage.
2. That there is no community of property to be
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer
adjudicated by the Court.
the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in
the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control
3. 'I'hat there are no community obligations to be over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own
adjudicated by the court.
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.