Facts – Plaintiff and defendant both Filipinos and presently residing in Manila. Married in Manila in 1919 and lived together as husband and wife until 1926 when they voluntarily separated. Couple have 4 children. In their settlement they agree that plaintiff wife will receive for their children’s support five hundred pesos (P500) monthly; this amount to be increased in case of illness or necessity, and the title of certain properties to be put in her name. After settlement husband left for the US where he secured an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion in November 1927 and consequently got married to another Filipina with whom he has 3 children at present. Husband defendant came back to the Philippines in 1928 where he since remained.
Defendant, after his departure from these Islands, reduced the amount he had agreed to pay monthly for the support of his wife and four minor children and has not made the payments fixed in the Reno divorce as alimony.
Case before the Court of First Instance – Wife requested the Court to confirm and ratify the decree of divorce issued by the State of Nevada. She prayed that 1) the community existing between plaintiff and defendant be declared dissolved and the defendant be ordered to render an accounting and to deliver to the plaintiff her share of the community property; 2) that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff alimony at the rate of five hundred pesos (P500) per month; 3) that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff, as counsel fees, the sum of five thousand pesos (P5000), and; 4) that the defendant be ordered to pay plaintiff the expenses incurred in educating the three minor sons.
Court Decision – Court decided in favour of the plaintiff except that it reduced counsel fees to 3000 and granted costs of action against defendant.
Appeal of Defendant - From this judgment defendant appeals and makes the following assignment of errors:
I. The lower court erred in not declaring that paragraph 2 of section 9 of the Philippine Divorce Law, is unconstitutional, null and void.
II. The lower court erred in holding that section 9 of Act No. 2710 (Divorce Law) applies to the Nevada decree of divorce issued in favor of appellant Augusto C. Gonzalez, said decree being entitled to confirmation and recognition.
III. The lower court erred in not dismissing the complaint in intervention for lack of cause of action against appellant and appellee.
IV. The lower court erred in not declaring the notice of lis pendens filed by intervenors to be null and void.
V. The lower court erred in ordering the appellant to pay the sum of P500 per month for the support not only of his children but also of his ex-wife, appellee herein, Manuela Barretto.
VI. The lower court erred in not holding that plaintiff- appellee, Manuela Barretto, is not entitled to support from her ex-husband, herein appellant, over and beyond the alimony fixed by the divorce decree in Exhibit A.
VII. The lower court erred in condemning defendant appellant to pay to plaintiff-appellee P3,000 attorney's fees.
VIII. The lower court erred in denying appellant's motion for new trial.
Issue – whether or not the divorce decree issued by the State of Nevada can be ratified by Philippine Court
Ruling – The Divorce Decree cannot be ratified in the Philippines. Invoking Article 9 of the Civil Code, “The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity or persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign country.” And Article 11 of the Civil Code “the prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts and their property, and those intended to promote public order and good morals, shall not be rendered without effect by any foreign laws or judgments or by anything done or any agreements entered into a foreign country”
StatCon – despite the lower court’s ruling granting relief stated that the securing of the divorce, the contracting of another marriage and the bringing into the world of innocent children brings about such a condition that the court must grant relief. HOWEVER “The hardships of the existing divorce laws of the Philippine Islands are well known to the members of the Legislature. It is of no moment in this litigation what he personal views of the writer on the subject of divorce may be. It is the duty of the courts to enforce the laws of divorce as written by the Legislature if they are constitutional. Courts have no right to say that such laws are too strict or too liberal.”
“The judgment of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila must therefore be reversed and defendant absolved from the demands made against him in this action. This, however, without prejudice to any right of maintenance that plaintiff and the intervenors may have against defendant. No special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.”
Defendant, after his departure from these Islands, reduced the amount he had agreed to pay monthly for the support of his wife and four minor children and has not made the payments fixed in the Reno divorce as alimony.
Case before the Court of First Instance – Wife requested the Court to confirm and ratify the decree of divorce issued by the State of Nevada. She prayed that 1) the community existing between plaintiff and defendant be declared dissolved and the defendant be ordered to render an accounting and to deliver to the plaintiff her share of the community property; 2) that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff alimony at the rate of five hundred pesos (P500) per month; 3) that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff, as counsel fees, the sum of five thousand pesos (P5000), and; 4) that the defendant be ordered to pay plaintiff the expenses incurred in educating the three minor sons.
Court Decision – Court decided in favour of the plaintiff except that it reduced counsel fees to 3000 and granted costs of action against defendant.
Appeal of Defendant - From this judgment defendant appeals and makes the following assignment of errors:
I. The lower court erred in not declaring that paragraph 2 of section 9 of the Philippine Divorce Law, is unconstitutional, null and void.
II. The lower court erred in holding that section 9 of Act No. 2710 (Divorce Law) applies to the Nevada decree of divorce issued in favor of appellant Augusto C. Gonzalez, said decree being entitled to confirmation and recognition.
III. The lower court erred in not dismissing the complaint in intervention for lack of cause of action against appellant and appellee.
IV. The lower court erred in not declaring the notice of lis pendens filed by intervenors to be null and void.
V. The lower court erred in ordering the appellant to pay the sum of P500 per month for the support not only of his children but also of his ex-wife, appellee herein, Manuela Barretto.
VI. The lower court erred in not holding that plaintiff- appellee, Manuela Barretto, is not entitled to support from her ex-husband, herein appellant, over and beyond the alimony fixed by the divorce decree in Exhibit A.
VII. The lower court erred in condemning defendant appellant to pay to plaintiff-appellee P3,000 attorney's fees.
VIII. The lower court erred in denying appellant's motion for new trial.
Issue – whether or not the divorce decree issued by the State of Nevada can be ratified by Philippine Court
Ruling – The Divorce Decree cannot be ratified in the Philippines. Invoking Article 9 of the Civil Code, “The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity or persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign country.” And Article 11 of the Civil Code “the prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts and their property, and those intended to promote public order and good morals, shall not be rendered without effect by any foreign laws or judgments or by anything done or any agreements entered into a foreign country”
StatCon – despite the lower court’s ruling granting relief stated that the securing of the divorce, the contracting of another marriage and the bringing into the world of innocent children brings about such a condition that the court must grant relief. HOWEVER “The hardships of the existing divorce laws of the Philippine Islands are well known to the members of the Legislature. It is of no moment in this litigation what he personal views of the writer on the subject of divorce may be. It is the duty of the courts to enforce the laws of divorce as written by the Legislature if they are constitutional. Courts have no right to say that such laws are too strict or too liberal.”
“The judgment of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila must therefore be reversed and defendant absolved from the demands made against him in this action. This, however, without prejudice to any right of maintenance that plaintiff and the intervenors may have against defendant. No special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.”
No comments:
Post a Comment