ROEHR V RODRIGUEZ The legal effects of which must still be determined by our court.

But before our courts

GR NO 142820 June 20, 2003 can give effect to a foreign judgment it must be shown that the parties opposed the
judgment on the ground of Sec 50 of Rules of Court.
FACTS:
 Petitioner, a German citizen and resident married private respondent It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment.
Rodriguez a Filipina, Decembere 11, 1980 in Germany.
 Subsequently was ratified in Negros Oriental, February 14, 1981 and begot 2 In the case at bar, it cannot be said that the private respondent was given the
children. opportunity to challenge the judgment with regard to rights of custody. It shows that
 August 28, 1996 respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of she neither commented on the proceedings unlike the petitioner.
marriage before RTC Makati.
 Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but was denied and later a motion for The decree dud not touch on the issue as to who is the offending party was. Absent of
reconsideration but likewise denied. any finding the private respondent was unfit to obtain custody of the children.
Therefore, custody should be regarded to the best interest of the children.
o December 16, 1997 petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from CFI of
Hamburg-Blankenese Regarding the property relations, the parties did not acquire conjugal nor community
property. There is no property to be accounted for.
 In view of this, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that trial
court has no jurisdiction over the matter, for there is already a divorce decree
that was promulgated and was granted.
o Respondent filed a motion for partial reconsideration to determine the
custody of their children and distribution of properties

 Petitioner opposed the said motion on the ground that there’s nothing more
to be done in the instant case as the marital tie between them had already been
severed by a divorce decree and was recognized by the RTC July 14, 1999

Following the implementation of Art 26 od the family code, allowing hi, to

remarry under the Philippine law.
Thus it was set aside by the respondent judge.
ISSUE:
WON The judge has committed grave abuse of discretion when it set aside the order
dated July 14, 1999 despite the fact that the petitioner already acquired a divorce
decree.

HELD:

This court consistently recognized that those divorce obtained abroad by an alien
spouse shall be recognized in our jurisdiction provided that it is valid according to the
national law of the foreigner.

In this case, the divorce that was issued by the German court has not been challenged
by either of the parties. Thereby endowing respondent to remarry. The controversy
mainly relates to the award of custody.
GOVERNING ARTICLE

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad

Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments
shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of
the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by
Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have, for
their object, public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws
in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also
be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6),
3637 and 38. (17a)

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and
a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law. (As amended by Executive Order 227)