Nature of the case: The petitioner, Alice Reyes Van Dorn implores the aid of the Supreme in reviewing

the decision of and preventing HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR, presiding Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City from rendering final an executor Judgement agains her Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order on Civil Case No. 1075-P. Facts of the Case: Alice Reyes Van Dorn, Filipino, and Richard Upton, American were married in the United States and were later divorced in the same country specifically in the state of Nevada 1982. During their marriage, they domiciled in the Philippines acquiring a property, the Galleon Shop, located in Ermita, Manila. A year later after the divorce has been granted, Richard Upton wanted an account of the business and the right to manage the property bringing the matter to the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in Pasay City, alleging that the said property is conjugal. He asserted that the Nevada court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy and that the acts and declaration of a foreign court cannot deprive Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to hear matters within its jurisdiction. The petitioner, Alice Reyes Van Dorn, in response to the action of the respondent, Richard Upton, filed a Motion to Dismiss to stop the respondent from claiming the said property maintaining that the respondent declared, during the divorce proceedings in the American court,that he and the petitioner had no community property and that the Galleon Shop was not acquired through conjugal funds and that the responden ts claim is barred by prior judgment of divorce. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss of Van Dorn, citing the nationality principle found in the Civil Code of the Philippines, declared that the property concerned is located in the Philippines and the Divorce Decree has no bearing on the case. Thus the petitioner brought the case to Supreme Court to review the decision of the Regional Trial Court and to prohibit them from rendering final and executory judgment on the Motion to Dismiss filed by the petitioner.

Issues: Whether foreign divorce between the Filipino petitioner and the American private respondent in Nevada be binding in the Philippines.

Whether the respondent have the right to claim alleged conjugal property in the Philippines. Ruling: The Supreme Court found the divorce of Van Dorn and Upton, be valid and binding in the Philippines, owing to the fact that it has been obtained in Nevada and is recognized by American law, the respondents nationality law. The private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner in accordance with his nationality law and thus is not entitled to have control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not refute, he is prohibited by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. Ratio Decidendi:
The Van Dorn and Upton divorces validity and binding effect in the Philippines was upheld by the Supreme Court on the ground that foreigners may obtain divorce abroad and may be recognized here in the Philippines provided that it is legitimate in their national law. 6 In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. As stated by the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:

The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The marriage tie when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides, in the nature of a penalty. that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage. In the light of justice and indiscrimination of Filipinos in their own homeland, the Supreme Court further established that petitioner should is not obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property.