Sikat v Canson

G.R. No. L-45152 April 10, 1939 LAUREL, J. GD

petitioners HILARIA SIKAT
respondents JOHN CANSON
summary Sikat and Canson were married. Canson is an Italian who became a Filipino who became a
US citizen to be able to acquire a divorce decree there. Court ruled that such decree is not
valid in this jurisdiction because it is not in accordance with our own laws and public
policy.
(Art. 26 of the FC will now apply to these kind of situations.)

facts of the case

Janson, an Italian, married Sikat, a Filipina, in the Philippines on 1904. They separated on 1911. Wife
commenced divorce proceedings but it was dismissed.
Canson became a naturalized Filipino. Really wanting a divorce, he became a naturalized US citizen and
obtained an absolute decree of divorce on the ground of desertion before a Nevada court. Sikat did not
accompany her husband in obtaining such decree.
In 1933, Sikat filed a civil case for support of P500 monthly from Canson. To this complaint, the defendant
Canson interposed three defenses: (1) adultery on the part of the plaintiff: (2) absolute divorce obtained by the
defendant as decreed by the court in Reno, Nevada, United States of America; and (3) that the defendant did
not have the means to pay the allowance sought. Lower Court ruled that divorce was invalid but Sikat
forfeited her right to support due to adultery.
In 1934, Sikat now wants a liquidation of the conjugal property under the theory that they are divorced by
virtue of the Nevada decree.
Lower court used the favorite provision of Dean.
Art.17(3) 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.
Its Art. 11 of the Old Civil Code which is in use at this time. The divorce decree is not obtained in
accordance with the Divorce Act, which means it is against our public policy and good custom.

issue
WON divorce is valid. NO

ratio
It seems that Canson became a US citizen 12 days before he obtained the decree. But accdg to the SC, residence
confers jurisdiction upon the court(US law provision siguro). Assuming he acquired legal residence in the
State of Nevada through the approval of his citizenship papers, this did not confer jurisdiction on the Nevada
court to grant a divorce that would be valid in this jurisdiction nor jurisdiction that could determine their
matrimonial status, because the wife was still domiciled in the Philippines.

Jurisdiction over Sikat was not acquired. The courts in the Philippines can grant a divorce only on the ground
of "adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband" as provided for under section 1
of Act No. 2710. The divorce decree in question was granted on the ground of desertion, clearly not a cause for
divorce under our laws.

Court also observed that Sikat is adopting inconsistent positions. First, she asked for support as wife. Failing
that, she is now impugning said marriage. SC says she should take the consequences of her fault.