8/13/2019 Van Dorn.pdf

1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985

AL CE RE!ES "AN #ORN, petitioner,vs.$ON. MANUEL ". ROM LLO, %R., &' Pre'()(*+ % )+e o r&*c/ C , Re+(o*& Tr(& Co rt ot/e N&t(o*& C&2(t& Re+(o* P&'&3 C(t3 &*) R C$AR# UPTON respondents.

MELENC O-$ERRERA, J.: \

In this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner lice Re!es Van Dorn see"s to set aside theOrders, dated Septe#ber $%, $&'( and u)ust (, $&'*, in +ivil +ase No. $ -% P, issued b!respondent /ud)e, 0hich denied her Motion to Dis#iss said case, and her Motion forReconsideration of the Dis#issal Order, respectivel!.

The basic bac")round facts are that petitioner is a citi1en of the Philippines 0hile private respondentis a citi1en of the 2nited States3 that the! 0ere #arried in 4on)"on) in $&-53 that, after the#arria)e, the! established their residence in the Philippines3 that the! be)ot t0o children born on

pril *, $&-( and Dece#ber $', $&-%, respectivel!3 that the parties 0ere divorced in Nevada, 2nitedStates, in $&'53 and that petitioner has re #arried also in Nevada, this ti#e to Theodore Van Dorn.

Dated /une ', $&'(, private respondent filed suit a)ainst petitioner in +ivil +ase No. $ -% P of theRe)ional Trial +ourt, 6ranch +7V, in Pasa! +it!, statin) that petitioner8s business in 9r#ita, Manila,

:the ;alleon Shop, for shortno co##unit! propert!> as of/une $$, $&'5. The +ourt belo0 denied the Motion to Dis#iss in the #entioned case on the )roundthat the propert! involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearin) inthe case. The denial is no0 the sub=ect of this certiorari proceedin).

;enerall!, the denial of a Motion to Dis#iss in a civil case is interlocutor! and is not sub=ect toappeal. certiorari and Prohibition are neither the re#edies to ?uestion the propriet! of aninterlocutor! order of the trial +ourt. 4o0ever, 0hen a )rave abuse of discretion 0as patentl!co##itted, or the lo0er +ourt acted capriciousl! and 0hi#sicall!, then it devolves upon this +ourt ina certiorari proceedin) to e@ercise its supervisor! authorit! and to correct the error co##itted 0hich,in such a case, is e?uivalent to lac" of =urisdiction. 1 Prohibition 0ould then lie since it 0ould beuseless and a 0aste of ti#e to )o ahead 0ith the proceedin)s. Aeconsider the petition filed in thiscase 0ithin the e@ception, and 0e have )iven it due course.

For resolution is the effect of the forei)n divorce on the parties and their alle)ed con=u)al propert! inthe Philippines.

8/13/2019 Van Dorn.pdf

2/3

8/13/2019 Van Dorn.pdf

3/3

The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce fro# the bond of #atri#on! b! a courtof co#petent =urisdiction are to chan)e the e@istin) status or do#estic relation ofhusband and 0ife, and to free the# both fro# the bond. The #arria)e tie 0hen thussevered as to one part!, ceases to bind either. husband 0ithout a 0ife, or a 0ife0ithout a husband, is un"no0n to the la0. Ahen the la0 provides, in the nature of apenalt!. that the )uilt! part! shall not #arr! a)ain, that part!, as 0ell as the other, is

still absolutel! freed fro# the bond of the for#er #arria)e.

Thus, pursuant to his national la0, private respondent is no lon)er the husband of petitioner. 4e0ould have no standin) to sue in the case belo0 as petitioner8s husband entitled to e@ercise controlover con=u)al assets. s he is bound b! the Decision of his o0n countr!8s +ourt, 0hich validl!e@ercised =urisdiction over hi#, and 0hose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped b! hiso0n representation before said +ourt fro# assertin) his ri)ht over the alle)ed con=u)al propert!.

To #aintain, as private respondent does, that, under our la0s, petitioner has to be considered still#arried to private respondent and still sub=ect to a 0ife8s obli)ations under rticle $ &, et. seq . of the+ivil +ode cannot be =ust. Petitioner should not be obli)ed to live to)ether 0ith, observe respect andfidelit!, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her

heirs 0ith possible ri)hts to con=u)al propert!. She should not be discri#inated a)ainst in her o0ncountr! if the ends of =ustice are to be served.

A49R9FOR9, the Petition is )ranted, and respondent /ud)e is hereb! ordered to dis#iss the+o#plaint filed in +ivil +ase No. $ -% P of his +ourt.

Aithout costs.

SO ORD9R9D.

Teehankee (Chairman) !lana "elova #utierre$ %r. &e la Fuente and !ata'o %%. concur.

oot*ote'

$ Sanche1 vs. Hosa, E' S+R $-$ :$&-%