Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Gonzalez
G.R. No. L-37048 7 March 1933 J. Hull Espaola
plaintiff Manuela Barretto Gonzalez
defendant Augusto C. Gonzalez
summary Augusto and Manuela married in the PH. They later separated, and he secured a divorce
decree in Reno, Nevada, USA. Afterwards, he married another Filipina, and returned to the
PH. Manuela sought to enforce the alimony of the Nevada divorce decree by having a PH
court recognize the divorce. The Court denied her prayer, since divorce is against public
policy. Foreign judgments cannot affect the status of citizens in a way that is contrary to
public policy.
issue
Whether the divorce decreed by the State of Nevada may be recognized in this jurisdiction. NO, since it is
against public policy.
ratio
The conduct of the parties in this case indicates a purpose to circumvent the Philippine laws regarding
divorce, and to secure a change of status not authorized by Philippine law. The matrimonial domicile of this
couple was the Philippines. Though Augusto acquired residence in the State of Nevada for the purpose of
securing a divorce, this was not a bona fide residence, and thus the Court of the State of Nevada had no
jurisdiction to dissolve the bonds of matrimony between Augusto and Manuela.
Art. 9 of the Spanish Civil Code provides: The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign
country. Further, Art. 11 reads: 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.
Litigants cannot, by mutual agreement, compel courts to approve of their own actions or permit citizens
personal relations to be affected by decrees of foreign courts, in a manner that Philippine law believes is
contrary to public order and good morals.
1
The CFIs judgment is thus reversed. Augusto is absolved from the demands made against him in this
action, without prejudice to any right of maintenance that Manuela and their children may have against him.