Barretto Gonzalez v. Gonzalez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Manuela Barretto Gonzalez and defendant Augusto C. Gonzalez were married in Manila in 1919 and lived together in the Philippine Islands until 1926. They had four children. After separating, they agreed on P500 monthly support, with increases for necessity, and transfer of property titles. The husband then went to Reno, Nevada, obtained an absolute divorce on November 28, 1927, on the ground of desertion, and remarried another woman in the Philippines, with whom he had three children. He also reduced the agreed monthly support payments. Procedural History: The wife filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking confirmation of the Nevada divorce decree, enforcement of Section 9 of Act No. 2710 (Philippine Divorce Law) regarding dissolution of community property and legal portions for children, dissolution of the community property, an accounting, delivery of her share, P500 monthly alimony, P5000 attorney's fees, and expenses for the children's education. The intervenors (children, represented by a guardian ad litem) joined the mother's prayer. The CFI granted the plaintiff and intervenors' prayers, reducing attorney's fees to P3000 and awarding costs against the defendant. The Petition: The defendant appealed the CFI's decision, assigning errors related to the constitutionality of Section 9 of Act No. 2710, the application of said section to the Nevada decree, the cause of action for intervention, the notice of lis pendens, the award of support for both the ex-wife and children, attorney's fees, and the denial of a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained in a jurisdiction where the parties did not have a bona fide residence can be recognized and ratified by Philippine courts, even when both parties consent to its recognition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila and absolved the defendant from the demands made against him in the action, without prejudice to any right of maintenance that the plaintiff and intervenors may have against the defendant. No special pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Reno divorce cannot be recognized in the Philippines because the parties were at all times citizens of the Philippine Islands with a matrimonial domicile in Manila. Applying Article 9 of the Civil Code, the Court emphasized that laws relating to family rights and duties follow the citizen even if they reside abroad. The Court further cited Article 11, which provides that prohibitive laws concerning persons and those intended to promote public order and good morals shall not be rendered without effect by foreign judgments or agreements. The residence acquired by Augusto in Nevada was deemed not a bona fide residence but a mere artifice to circumvent Philippine laws. The Court ruled that litigants cannot, by mutual agreement, compel the judiciary to approve of foreign decrees that are contrary to the government's established public policy on divorce. Finally, the Court noted that it is the duty of the courts to enforce the divorce laws as written by the Legislature, regardless of personal views on their strictness or liberality.
Main Doctrine
Foreign divorces obtained by citizens of the Philippine Islands, particularly when the matrimonial domicile has always been within the Philippines and the foreign residence was not bona fide, will not be recognized in this jurisdiction if they are contrary to the public policy and prohibitive laws of the Philippine Islands concerning public order and good morals, as embodied in the Civil Code and the Divorce Law (Act No. 2710).