Case Digest (G.R. No. 37048)
Facts:
Manuela Barretto Gonzalez v. Augusto C. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 37048, March 07, 1933, the Supreme Court En Banc, Hull, J., writing for the Court.
Manuela Barretto Gonzalez (plaintiff-appellee) and Augusto C. Gonzalez (defendant-appellant) were married in Manila on January 19, 1919, and lived together in the Philippine Islands until their voluntary separation in the spring of 1926. Four children were born of the marriage, then aged about 11, 10, 8, and 6 at the time of the later litigation. After separation the parties, each represented by counsel, negotiated support arrangements under which the husband agreed to pay P500 monthly (to be increased for illness or necessity) and to transfer title to certain properties to the wife.
Shortly after those negotiations the husband left the Philippine Islands, went to Reno, Nevada, and on November 28, 1927 obtained from that jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion; on the same date he purportedly remarried a Philippine citizen and later had three more children. After his departure he reduced the support he had previously agreed to pay and did not make the payments fixed in the Nevada divorce as alimony.
Upon his return to the Philippines (August 1928) the wife filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking confirmation and ratification of the Reno decree, enforcement of section 9 of Act No. 2710 (the Philippine Divorce Law) to require delivery to the guardian ad litem of the children's legal portions, dissolution of the community of property, an accounting and delivery of the wife's share of community property, alimony at P500 per month, counsel fees of P5,000, and costs for educating three minor sons. A guardian ad litem was appointed; the minor children intervened and joined their mother.
The Court of First Instance granted relief as prayed, but reduced counsel fees to P3,000 and awarded costs against the defendant. The defendant appealed and assigned eight errors, including challenges to (I) the constitutionality of paragraph 2 of section 9 of Act No. 2710, (II) application and recognition of the Nevada divorce and Sec. 9 to that decree, (III) the intervenors' cause of action, (IV) the lis pendens filed by intervenors, (V–VI) the order for P500 monthly support particularly to the former wife and children beyond the Nevada alimony, (VII) the award of attorney’s fees, and (VIII) denial of a new trial.
The Supreme Court, Hull, J., reviewed prior Philippine precedents on recognition of foreign divorce (including Goitia v. Campos Rueda, Garcia Valdez v. Soterana Tuason, Ramirez v. Gmur, Chereau v. Fuentebella, Fernandez v. De Castro, Gorayeb v. Hashim, Francisco v. Tayao, Alkuino Lim Pang v. Uy Pian Ng Shun and Lim Tingco, and Cousins Hix v. Fluemer), and considered the Civil C...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Reno, Nevada divorce obtained by defendant entitled to recognition and confirmation by Philippine courts?
- Is paragraph 2 of section 9 of Act No. 2710 unconstitutional as applied to the Reno decree?
- Did the intervening minor children have a cause of action to intervene in the action to confirm the foreign divorce?
- Was the notice of lis pendens filed by intervenors invalid?
- Was the trial court correct in ordering the defendant to pay P500 per month for the support of his ex-wife and children?
- Is plaintiff entitled to support from defendant beyond the alimony fixed by the Nevada decree?
- Was the award of attorney’s fees in favor of plaintiff proper? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)