Gorayeb v. Hashim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff-appellee, Afife Abdo Cheyban Gorayeb, instituted a civil case against her husband, Nadjib Tannus Hashim, seeking support. An order for provisional alimony of P1,000 per month was issued, which the defendant husband unsuccessfully sought to abrogate. The trial court eventually awarded permanent alimony of P500 per month, retroactive to the filing of the complaint, which was affirmed on appeal. Subsequently, the lower court reduced the alimony to P100 per month. Procedural History: The defendant husband obtained a decree of divorce from a court in Nevada, USA, while the issue of his civil liability for support was pending. Upon his return to the Philippines, the plaintiff filed a motion to declare him in contempt for non-payment of alimony. The defendant pleaded the Nevada divorce decree as a defense. The trial court absolved him from contempt, finding his defense to be in good faith, but declared that his civil obligation to pay alimony remained in force, ordering him to continue payment at P100 per month. The defendant appealed this latter order. The Petition: The defendant appealed the trial court's order declaring him civilly liable for alimony despite the Nevada divorce decree.
Issue(s)
Whether the Nevada divorce decree obtained by the defendant is entitled to recognition in the Philippine courts. Whether the defendant is civilly liable for the payment of alimony despite the Nevada divorce decree. Whether the defendant should be relieved from paying alimony due to alleged overpayment based on the provisional alimony order.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, holding that the Nevada divorce decree is not entitled to recognition in the Philippines and that the defendant remains civilly liable for the payment of alimony. The Court found no error in the trial court's determination of the defendant's liability and the amount thereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On the recognition of the Nevada divorce decree: The Court held that the Nevada divorce decree is not entitled to recognition in the Philippines because the defendant's sojourn in Nevada was a mere ruse to evade his obligations under Philippine law, lacking genuine intention to acquire a legal domicile there. Citing Ramirez vs. Gmur, the Court reiterated that a court in a jurisdiction where neither spouse is domiciled, and to which they resort merely for divorce, lacks jurisdiction, and its decree is not recognized elsewhere. The voluntary appearance of the defendant does not confer jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that residence must be bona fide and that a divorce obtained under such circumstances constitutes a collateral attack on the decree, which is permissible to determine jurisdiction. The provision of Section 309 of the Code of Civil Procedure, regarding the effect of foreign judgments, does not compel recognition of a decree that is void for want of jurisdiction. On the civil liability for alimony: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the defendant's civil obligation to pay alimony remained in full force and effect, notwithstanding the Nevada divorce decree. The Court reasoned that since the divorce decree was invalid in the Philippines, it could not dissolve the marital bonds or relieve the defendant of his legal obligations. Alimony is an allowance for support, fixed to meet current necessities, and the demands of the present and future cannot be satisfied from the resources of the past. Therefore, the defendant's obligation to pay alimony persisted. On the alleged overpayment of alimony: The Court rejected the defendant's claim that he should be relieved from paying alimony due to alleged overpayment. While the provisional alimony order was P1,000 per month and the final award was P500 per month, the Court noted that the properties acquired by the plaintiff through execution were subject to pre-existing debts of the conjugal partnership, and she had not yet received the full amount due to her in cash. Furthermore, the Court cited jurisprudence holding that excessive payments made under prior valid, though erroneous, orders cannot be offset against claims for current alimony, especially when the current alimony is a modest amount necessary for respectable existence. The Court found no equitable consideration in the defendant's favor regarding the supposed overpayment.
Main Doctrine
A divorce decree obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, where neither spouse is domiciled and to which one or both may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, is not entitled to recognition in Philippine courts, especially when the procurement of such divorce is a mere device to evade obligations imposed by Philippine law.