Scribd
Upload
90 views1 page

19 - Van Dorn v. Romillo

Van Dorn and Upton, a Filipino and American respectively, were married in Hong Kong in 1972 and established residence in the Philippines. In 1982 they divorced in Nevada, US. After remarrying, Van Dorn was sued by Upton claiming her business was conjugal property. The RTC dismissed Van Dorn's motion claiming the divorce decree did not apply. However, the Supreme Court ruled the divorce decree did bar Upton's suit as it dissolved the marriage under his national law, so he no longer had standing as Van Dorn's husband.

Uploaded by

Yuri Nishimiya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
90 views1 page

19 - Van Dorn v. Romillo

Van Dorn and Upton, a Filipino and American respectively, were married in Hong Kong in 1972 and established residence in the Philippines. In 1982 they divorced in Nevada, US. After remarrying, Van Dorn was sued by Upton claiming her business was conjugal property. The RTC dismissed Van Dorn's motion claiming the divorce decree did not apply. However, the Supreme Court ruled the divorce decree did bar Upton's suit as it dissolved the marriage under his national law, so he no longer had standing as Van Dorn's husband.

Uploaded by

Yuri Nishimiya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

VAN DORN V.

ROMILLO
Art 14-18: Binding Effect

Alice Reyes Van Dorn, Petitioner, v. Hon. Manuel v. Romillo, Jr., as Presiding Judge of
Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and Richard
Upton
G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985

DOCTRINE: Divorce decrees obtained abroad by aliens may be recognized in the Philippines,
provided that they are valid according to the alien’s national law.
FACTS:
Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn (Van Dorn) is a Filipino citizen, while private respondent
Richard Upton (Upton) is a citizen of the united states. Van Dorn and Upton were married in
Hongkong in 1972, and the two established their residence in the Philippines. In 1982, the
parties divorced in Nevada, United States. Subsequent to their divorce, Van Dorn remarried in
Nevada, United States.

On June 8, 1983, Upton filed a suit against the petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasay City, stating that the business of the petitioner in Ermita is a conjugal property of the two.
Upton asked that the petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of the business. Upton avers
that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of
the Philippines.

Van Dorn moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the business was not established
through conjugal funds. Furthermore, during the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court,
Van Dorn and Upton acknowledged that there was ‘no community property’ as of June 11,
1982, as such, Upton was barred by prior judgment from establishing a claim on the ‘conjugal
property’.

The RTC dismissed the motion to dismiss of Van Dorn on the ground that the property involved
is located in the Philippines, and that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court bars Upton from the
filing of the suit.

RULING: Yes. The private respondent, Upton, has no standing to sue as the petitioner’s
husband. The Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court is binding on Upton as an American
citizen. The Divorce Decree released Upton from the marriage under his national law, and thus,
the marriage was dissolved. Since Upton was no longer the husband of the petitioner, he no
longer has the standing to sue for entitlement to exercise control over the conjugal assets. To
maintain otherwise, and rule that Van Dorn was still married to Upton cannot be just.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy