VAN DORN (petitioner) VS.

RONILLO (respondent) :1985

ART. 15 (on nationality principle)

Melencio-Herrera (ponente

FACTS:

Petitioner (citizen of the Philippines) married Respondent (citizen of the US), and that they got
married in HongKong. Parties were divorced in Nevada, US. Petitioner remarried also in Nevada,
US, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. Private respondent filed suit against petitioner stating that
petitioner’s business is a conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground
that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the
Nevada Court: “no community property”. The Court denied the Motion to dismiss that the
property is located in the Philippines.

ISSUE: the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in
the Philippines

HELD: The divorce decree cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its
declared national policy; that the acts and declaration of a foreign court cannot, especially if the
same is contrary to public policy, divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction to entertain mattes
within its jurisdiction. The decree is binding to American Citizen Respondent. Owing to the
nationality principle embodied in Art. 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered
by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of
public policy and morality. It may be valid in the Philippines, if it is valid in their national laws.
Since respondent is an American Citizen and got divorced abroad and the law is binding and
valid in respondent’s national law, he cannot be the husband and assert claim over conjugal
property.

Wherefore, petition is granted. Ordered to dismiss the complaint.