FACTS:
·
The plaintiff & defendant were both
citizens of the Philippines, married & lived together from January 1919
until Spring of 1926. After which they voluntary separated &
have not lived together as man & wife, they had 4 minor children
together.
·
After negotiations, both parties mutually agreed to allow Manuela
Barreto (plaintiff) for her & her children’s
support of P500 (five hundred pesos) monthly which to be increased in cases
of necessity & illness, and that the title of certain
properties be put in her name.
·
Shortly after the agreement, Augusto Gonzales (defendant), when to
Reno, Nevada & secured in that
jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion dated November 28,
1927. On that same date he went through the forms of marriage with
another Filipino citizen as well & had 3children with her.
·
When Gonzales left the Philippines, he reduced the amount he
had agreed to pay monthly for the support
of Manuela Barreto & her children & has not made the payments fixed in
the Reno divorce as alimony.
·
Gonzales came back to the Philippines in
August 1928 and shortly after, Barreto brought anaction at the
CFI-Manila requesting to confirm & ratify the decree of divorce issued by
the courts of Nevada & invoked sec 9 of
Act 2710. Such is requested to be enforced, and deliver to theGuardian ad litem
the equivalent of what would have been due to their children as their legalportion
from respective estates had their parents died intestate on November 28, 1927,
they also prayed that the marriage existing between Barreto & Gonzales be
declared dissolved & Gonzalesbe ordered to pay Barreto P500 per month,
counsel fees of P5000 & all the expenses incurred in educating the 3 minor
sons. The guardians of the children also filed as intervenors in the case.
·
After the hearing, the CFI-Manila granted the judgement in favor
of the plaintiff & intervenors, but reduced
the attorney’s fees to P3000 instead & also granted
the costs of the action against the defendant, Hence, this
appeal by Gonzales saying that the lower court erred in their decision.
ISSUE:
WON any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the
Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this jurisdiction, except it be
for a cause, and under conditions for which the courts of the Philippine Islands
would grant a divorce.
NO.
·
The lower court erred in granting the relief as prayed for on
granting the divorce, because:
·
The court said that securing the jurisdiction
of the courts to recognize & approve the divorce done in Reno, Nevada
cannot be done according to the public policy in this jurisdiction on the question of
divorce.
·
It’s clear in Act No. 2710 & court decisions on cases such as
Goitia VS. Campos Rueda that the entire conduct of the parties from the time
of their separation until the case was submitted praying the ratification
of the Reno Divorce was clearly a circumvention of the law regarding
divorce & will be done under conditions not authorized by our laws.
·
The matrimonial domicile of the couple had always been the
Philippines & the residence acquired by the husband in Reno, Nevada
was a bona fide residence & did not confer jurisdiction upon the court
of that state to dissolve the matrimonial bonds in which he had entered in 1919.
·
Art 9 & Art 11 of the Civil Code & The Divorce Law of the
Philippines does not allow such to be done,
·
the effect of foreign divorce in the
Philippines says that litigants cannot compel the courts to approve of their
own actions or permit the personal relations of the Citizens of the
Philippines to be affected by decrees of divorce of foreign courts in
manner which out government believes
is contrary to public order & good morals
No comments:
Post a Comment