Case Summary (G.R. No. 37048)
Background and Proceedings
Following their separation, Augusto traveled to Reno, Nevada, where he obtained an absolute divorce on the grounds of desertion dated November 28, 1927. Immediately after, he remarried in the Philippines and fathered three children with his new wife. Upon his return to Manila in 1928, Augusto reduced his prior monthly support payments to Manuela and their children and failed to comply with the alimony established by the Reno court.
Manuela filed a case in the Court of First Instance in Manila seeking: recognition and confirmation of the Nevada divorce, enforcement of Section 9 of the Philippine Divorce Law (Act No. 2710), dissolution of the community property, accounting and delivery of her share of the community property, enforcement of monthly alimony payments, attorney’s fees, and expenses for the children’s education. A guardian ad litem represented the minor children who intervened in the case.
Applicable Law: Act No. 2710 and Philippine Public Policy on Divorce
The Republic Act No. 2710 (Philippine Divorce Law) governs divorce in the Philippines. Notably, Section 9 mandates that while divorce dissolves the community of property, it does not dissolve the bonds of matrimony until one year later and only if the parent who has legitimate children satisfies obligations equivalent to their legal portion. The law embodies the Philippines’ strong public policy against the dissolution of marriage bonds except under limited and specific grounds recognized by Philippine law.
Trial Court Judgment and Appeal
The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Manuela and the intervenors largely granting the relief requested, albeit reducing the attorney’s fees awarded. The defendant Augusto appealed, challenging the constitutionality of Section 9 of Act No. 2710, the applicability of that statute to the Nevada divorce, the validity of intervention, support obligations, attorney’s fees, and procedural rulings.
Supreme Court Analysis on Recognition of Foreign Divorce
The Court emphasized that Filipino matrimonial domicile remained in the Philippines; Augusto’s temporary residence in Nevada was not bona fide to confer jurisdiction to the Nevada court to dissolve their marriage. The parties' attempt to use foreign divorce to circumvent Philippine law was a violation of public order and good morals.
The Court cited Civil Code provisions (Articles 9 and 11), highlighting that family and status laws binding Filipino citizens cannot be overridden by foreign laws or judgments contrary to Philippine public policy. Recognition of foreign divorce decrees for Filipinos is generally barred unless granted under the causes and conditions allowed in Philippine law.
Constitutional and Policy Considerations
The Court refrained from ruling on the constitutional questions involved, noting it was bound to enforce the laws as written by the legislature. The hardships of existing divorce laws notwithstanding, the courts cannot approve acts that contravene legislative intent and public policy. Th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 37048)
Parties and Background
- The case involves Manuela Barretto Gonzalez (plaintiff and appellee) and Augusto C. Gonzalez (defendant and appellant), both Philippine citizens and residents of Manila.
- They were married on January 19, 1919, and lived together until their voluntary separation in Spring 1926.
- Four children were born of this marriage, ages 11, 10, 8, and 6 at the time of the case.
- After separation, the parties negotiated, represented by attorneys, and agreed on a monthly support payment of five hundred pesos (P500) for Manuela and the children, with provisions for increases in case of illness or necessity and transfer of certain properties to Manuela’s name.
- Subsequent to this agreement, the husband left the Philippines for Reno, Nevada, where he obtained an absolute divorce on grounds of desertion on November 28, 1927.
- Augusto later moved to California and returned to the Philippines in August 1928; on the day he secured the Nevada divorce, he married another Philippine citizen and had three children from this second union.
- Upon departure, Augusto reduced the agreed monthly support payments and failed to comply with the alimony terms fixed by the Reno divorce decree.
Proceedings and Claims in Philippine Courts
- Manuela filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking confirmation and ratification of the Nevada divorce decree.
- She requested enforcement of Section 9 of Act No. 2710 (Philippine Divorce Law), particularly paragraphs addressing dissolution of community property and dissolution of bonds of matrimony with respect to support for legitimate children.
- She demanded delivery to the guardian ad litem of sums equivalent to the children’s legal portions as if the parents had died intestate on November 28, 1927.
- She further prayed for the declaration of dissolution of the community property between herself and Augusto, an accounting and delivery of her share, alimony at P500 per month, attorney’s fees amounting to P5,000, and educational expenses for the three minor sons.
- A guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor children, who intervened and supported the mother’s claims.
- The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Manuela and the intervenors, granting the relief sought except that attorney’s fees were reduced to P3,000 and costs were awarded against the defendant.
Defendant’s Appeals and Assignments of Error
- Augusto appealed, raising multiple points of error:
- Contended the const