7/27/2019 149827949-CASE-DIGESTS

1/1

AN DORN VS. ROMILLO

etition for Certiorari and Prohibition.

ACTS:

etitioner Filipino Citizen

ivate Respondent US Citizen

Married in Hongkong

Resided in the

Philippines

Begot 2 children

Got divorced in

Nevada, US

Petitioner re-married inNevada to Theodore Van Dorn.

Private respondent filed a suitagainst the petitioners

business claiming that it is aconjugal property and he be

given the right to manage thebusiness.

However, petitioner moved todismiss the petition for theprivate respondent togetherwith the petitioner, in their

divorce proceeding, disclosed

that they had no communityproperty.

Petition to dismiss was deniedfor the said property wassituated in the Philippines and

divorce decree has no bearingin the case.

EGAL ISSUE/S:

Whether or not privaterespondent, who is a US

citizen, have a right to demandrights over the allegedconjugal property with thepetitioner.

ULING:

With the degree of divorcebeing binding to the private

respondent, he hasextinguished his rights as well

as a right to sue over conjugalassets being the former

husband of the petitioner.

Although divorce is contrary to

local law and public policy, therespondent, under the laws ofhis home country, will nolonger be considered as the

husband of the petitioner.

The petitioner, under Art. 109of the Civil Code, is stillsubject to her obligations asthe wife of the respondent.However, the said Art. was

deemed unjust by the courtand if justice was sought bythe petitioner, being a Filipinocitizen, she must be freed of

all the obligations she stillhave for her former husband.

Thus, petition to dismiss wasGRANTED.

PILAPIL VS. IBAY-SOMERA

Special Civic Action for Cetiorari andProhibition.

FACTS:

Petitioner - Filipina, Imelda ManalaysayPilapilPrivate Respondent - German, ErichEkkehard Geiling, German

Got married in Federal

Republic of Germany

Rerided in Malate,

Manila 1 child

After 3 years of marriage,Erich file a divorce proceeding

against Imelda before theSchoneberg Local Courtclaiming that they have beenliving apart for almost a year.

Petitioner then filed an actionfor legal separation, support

and separation of property onthe RTC of Manila.

Divorce decree was grantedand custody over the child

went to the mother. Five months after the divorce,

the respondent file two casesof adultery, which allegedly

happen during the marriage.

Investigation was dismissed

for lack of evidence. However,upon review, the respondent

city fiscal approved aresolution for the filing of the

two complaints of adulteryagainst Imelda Pilapil.

The petitioner refused to bearraigned and prayed for a

TRO, seeking annulment of the

order on the grounds that therespondent does not qualify asan offended spouse.

LEGAL ISSUE:

Whether or not the privaterespondent has the right tosue the petitioner on the caseof adultery.

RULING:

No prosecution for adulterycan be commenced except onthe complaint of the husbandor wife.

Since the divorce decree isbinding to all persons under its

jurisdiction, the privaterespondent does not qualify as

an offended spouse thus thecomplaint for adultery shall be

deemed null and void.

Under Art. 15 of the Civil Code

only Philippine nationals arecovered by the policy against

absolute divorces the samebeing considered contrary toour concept of public policyand morality. However, aliens

may obtain divorces abroad,which may be recognized in

the Philippines, providedare valid according to

national law. Thus, pursuahis national law, prespondent has ceased tthe husband of the peti

and has no legal standicommence adultery case.

Petitioners motion to quaSET ASIDE and anotherentered DISMIISING complaint for lack

jurisdiction. The TRO in

issued case is hereby permanent.