G.R. No.

L-45152 April 10, 1939

HILARIA SIKAT vs. JOHN CANSON

Facts:
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. It was 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: Whether or not the divorce was valid.

Held: NO

It seems that Canson became a US citizen 12 days before he obtained the decree. But according
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.
G.R. No. L-68470 (139 SCRA 139) October 8, 1985

ALICE REYES VAN DORN vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch
CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTON

Facts:
Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private respondent, Richard Upton, a US citizen, was
married in Hong Kong in 1979. They established their residence in the Philippines and had 2 children.
They were divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982 and petitioner remarried, this time with Theodore Van Dorn.
A suit against petitioner was filed on June 8, 1983, stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita Manila, the
Galleon Shop, is a conjugal property with Upton and prayed therein that Alice be ordered to render an
accounting of the business and he be declared as the administrator of the said property.

Issue:
Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in Nevada is binding
in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

Held:
Private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He would have no standing to sue
petitioner to exercise control over conjugal assets. He is estopped by his own representation before the
court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. Furthermore, aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national
law. Petitioner is not bound to her marital obligations to respondent by virtue of her nationality laws.
She should not be discriminated against her own country if the end of justice is to be served.