Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 258 views

    Noveras v. Noveras, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lawiswis
    1. David and Leticia Noveras were married in the Philippines but lived in the US, where they obtained citizenship and had two children. David returned to the Philippines in 2001. Leticia filed for divorce in California in 2005 due to David's extramarital affair, and was granted custody of the children. 2. Leticia filed for judicial separation of property in the Philippines. David argued the California divorce decree should dictate liquidation of property. 3. The court ruled the divorce decree could not be recognized because its authenticity and applicable California law were not proven. Without recognizing the divorce, the parties remained married under Philippine law. The court granted judicial separation of property, as over a year of separation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Noveras v. Noveras, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lawiswis
    258 views1 page
    1. David and Leticia Noveras were married in the Philippines but lived in the US, where they obtained citizenship and had two children. David returned to the Philippines in 2001. Leticia filed for divorce in California in 2005 due to David's extramarital affair, and was granted custody of the children. 2. Leticia filed for judicial separation of property in the Philippines. David argued the California divorce decree should dictate liquidation of property. 3. The court ruled the divorce decree could not be recognized because its authenticity and applicable California law were not proven. Without recognizing the divorce, the parties remained married under Philippine law. The court granted judicial separation of property, as over a year of separation

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. David and Leticia Noveras were married in the Philippines but lived in the US, where they obtained citizenship and had two children. David returned to the Philippines in 2001. Leticia filed for divorce in California in 2005 due to David's extramarital affair, and was granted custody of the children. 2. Leticia filed for judicial separation of property in the Philippines. David argued the California divorce decree should dictate liquidation of property. 3. The court ruled the divorce decree could not be recognized because its authenticity and applicable California law were not proven. Without recognizing the divorce, the parties remained married under Philippine law. The court granted judicial separation of property, as over a year of separation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    258 views1 page

    Noveras v. Noveras, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lawiswis
    1. David and Leticia Noveras were married in the Philippines but lived in the US, where they obtained citizenship and had two children. David returned to the Philippines in 2001. Leticia filed for divorce in California in 2005 due to David's extramarital affair, and was granted custody of the children. 2. Leticia filed for judicial separation of property in the Philippines. David argued the California divorce decree should dictate liquidation of property. 3. The court ruled the divorce decree could not be recognized because its authenticity and applicable California law were not proven. Without recognizing the divorce, the parties remained married under Philippine law. The court granted judicial separation of property, as over a year of separation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    DAVID A. NOVERAS vs. LETICIA T.

    NOVERAS
    G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014, J. Perez

    Facts:
    David A. Noveras (David) and Leticia T. Noveras (Leticia) were married on 3 December 1988 in Quezon City,
    Philippines. They resided in California, United States of America (USA) where they eventually acquired
    American citizenship. They then begot two children, namely: Jerome T. Noveras, who was born on 4
    November 1990 and JenaT. Noveras, born on 2 May 1993.

    David was engaged in courier service business while Leticia worked as a nurse in San Francisco, California.

    Due to business reverses, David left the USA and returned to the Philippines in 2001. Upon learning that David
    had an extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce with the Superior Court of California, County of
    San Mateo, USA. The California court granted the divorce on 24 June 2005 and judgment was duly entered on
    29 June 2005.6 The California court granted Leticia the custody of her two children, as well as all the couple’s
    properties in the USA.

    On 8 August 2005, Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler,
    Aurora. She prayed for: 1) the power to administer all conjugal properties in the Philippines; 2) David and his
    partner to cease and desist from selling the subject conjugal properties; 3) the declaration that all conjugal
    properties be forfeited in favor of her children; 4) David to remit half of the purchase price as share of Leticia
    from the sale of the Sampaloc property; and 5) the payment ofP50,000.00 and P100,000.00 litigation expenses
    In his Answer, David stated that a judgment for the dissolution of their marriage was entered on 29 June 2005
    by the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. He demanded that the conjugal partnership
    properties, which also include the USA properties, be liquidated and that all expenses of liquidation, including
    attorney’s fees of both parties be charged against the conjugal partnership.

    Issues:
    1. Whether or not the divorce decree should be judicially recognized
    2. Whether or not the petition for judicial separation of property is proper

    Ruling:
    1. No, the divorce decree should not be judicially recognized for the requisites were not complied with.
    The requirements of presenting the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the foreigner must comply
    with our Rules of Evidence. Specifically, for Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the
    status of a marriage, a copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under
    Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.

    Based on the records, only the divorce decree was presented in evidence. The required certificates to prove its
    authenticity, as well as the pertinent California law on divorce were not presented. Even if the Court applies the
    doctrine of processual presumption as the lower courts did with respect to the property regime of the parties,
    the recognition of divorce is entirely a different matter because, to begin with, divorce is not recognized
    between Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the
    parties are still legally married in the Philippines. The trial court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation.

    2. Having established that Leticia and David had actually separated for at least one year, the petition for
    judicial separation of absolute community of property should be granted. Separation in fact for one year as a
    ground to grant a judicial separation of property was not tackled in the trial court’s decision because, the trial
    court erroneously treated the petition as liquidation of the absolute community of properties.

    The records of this case are replete with evidence that Leticia and David had indeed separated for more than a
    year and that reconciliation is highly improbable. First, while actual abandonment had not been proven, it is
    undisputed that the spouses had been living separately since 2003 when David decided to go back to the
    Philippines to set up his own business. Second, Leticia heard from her friends that David has been cohabiting
    with Estrellita Martinez, who represented herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha Apolonio, who worked in the
    hospital where David was once confined, testified that she saw the name of Estrellita listed as the wife of David
    in the Consent for Operation form. Third and more significantly, they had filed for divorce and it was granted by
    the California court in June 2005.

    You might also like