EN BANC adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband, and if the

decree is predicated on another ground, that decree cannot be enforced in this jurisdiction.
[G.R. No. L-6768. July 31, 1954.] The divorce decree in question was granted on the ground of desertion, clearly not a cause
for divorce under our laws. This is in keeping with the well-known principle of Private
SALUD R. ARCA and ALFREDO JAVIER. JR., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ALFREDO International Law which prohibits the extension of foreign judgment, or the law affecting the
JAVIER, Defendant-Appellant.  same, if it is contrary to the law or fundamental policy of the State of the forum. (Minor
Conflict of Laws, pp. 8-14)
David F. Barrera, for Appellant. 

Jose P. Santillan, for Appellees. DECISION

SYLLABUS BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

1. DIVORCE CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL TO DECLARE FOREIGN DIVORCE IN THIS Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cavite ordering him to give a
JURISDICTION; ANSWER FILED BY LOCAL RESIDENT DOES NOT CONFER monthly allowance of P60 to plaintiffs beginning March 31, 1953, and to pay them
JURISDICTION TO FOREIGN COURT. — In 1937, A, a natural born Filipino citizen, attorney’s fees in the amount of P150 defendant took the case directly to this Court
married S, another Filipino citizen. Before their marriage they had already a child, who attributing five errors to the court below. This implies that the facts are not disputed. 
thereby became legitimated. a enlisted in the United States Navy and later sailed for the
United States leaving behind his wife and child. On August 13, 1940, he filed an action for The important facts which need to be considered in relation to the errors assigned appear
divorce in the Circuit Court of mobile Country, Alabama, U.S.A., alleging as ground well narrated in the decision of the court below which, for purposes of this appeal, are
abandonment by his wife. Having received a copy of the complaint, S filed an answer quoted hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
alleging, among other things, that A was not a resident of Mobile Country, but of Naic,
Cavite, Philippines, and that it was not true that the cause of their separation was "On November 19, 1937, plaintiff Salud R. Arca and defendant Alfredo Javier had their
abandonment on her part but that A was in the United States, without her, because he was marriage solemnized by Judge Mariano Nable of the Municipal Court of Manila. At the time
then enlisted in the U.S. Navy. The Circuit Court of Mobile Country granted the divorce on of their marriage, they had already begotten a son named Alfredo Javier, Junior who was
April 9, 1941. does this decree have a valid effect in this jurisdiction? Held: This court, in a born on December 2, 1931. Sometime in 1938, defendant Alfredo Javier left for the United
number of cases of similar nature, has invariably denied the validity of the cases of similar States on board a ship of the United States Navy, for it appears that he had joined the
nature, has invariably denied the validity of the divorce decree. In essence, it was held that United States Navy since 1927, such that at the time of his marriage with plaintiff Salud R.
one of the essential conditions for the validity of a decree of divorce is that the court must Arca, defendant Alfredo Javier was already an enlisted man in the United States Navy.
have jurisdiction over the subject matter and in order that this may be acquired, plaintiff Because of defendant Alfredo Javier’s departure for the United States in 1938, his wife,
must be domiciled in good faith in the State in which it is granted (Cousins Hix v. Fluemer, Salud R. Arca, who is from (Maragondon), Cavite, chose to live with defendant’s parents at
55 Phil., 851,856). . . . "and assuming that (plaintiff)acquired legal residence in the State of Naic, Cavite. But for certain incompatibility of character (frictions having occurred between
Nevada through the approval of his citizenship papers, this would not confer jurisdiction on plaintiff Salud R. Arca’s and defendant’s folks) plaintiff Salud R. Arca had found it
the Nevada court to grant divorce that would be valid i this jurisdiction, nor jurisdiction that necessary to leave defendant’s parents’ abode and transfer her residence to
could determined their matrimonial status, because the wife was still domiciled in the (Maragondon), Cavite — her native place Since then the relation between plaintiff Salud R.
Philippines. The Nevada court never acquired jurisdiction over her person." (Sikat v. Arca and defendant Alfredo Javier became strained such that on August 13, 1940
Canson, 67 Phil., 207.) The answer filed by S, in view of the summons served upon her in defendant Alfredo Javier brought an action for divorce against Salud R. Arca before the
this jurisdiction, cannot be interpreted as placing hereunder the jurisdiction of the court Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA, docketed as civil case No. 14313
because its only purpose was to impugn the claim of A that his domicile or legal residence of that court and marked as Exhibit 2(c) in this case. Having received a copy of the
at that time was Mobile Country, and to show that the ground of desertion imputed to her complaint for divorce on September 23, 1940, plaintiff Salud R. Arca — answering the
was baseless and false. Such answer should be considered as a special appearance the complaint — alleged in her answer that she received copy of the complaint on September
purpose of which is to impugn the jurisdiction of the court over the case.  23, 1940 although she was directed to file her answer thereto on or before September 23,
1940. In that answer she filed, plaintiff Salud R. Arca averred among other things that
2. RESIDENCE; PERMANENT RESIDENCE REQUIRED TO CONFER JURISDICTION defendant Alfredo Javier was not a resident of Mobile County, State of Alabama, for the
OF FOREIGN COURT. — Where a local resident went to a foreign country, not with the period of twelve months preceding the institution of the complaint, but that he was a
intention of permanently residing there, or of considering that place as his permanent resident of Naic, Cavite, Philippines. Another averment of interest, which is essential to
abode, but for the sole purpose of obtaining divorce from his wife, such residence is not relate here, is that under paragraph 5 of her answer to the complaint for divorce, Salud R.
sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the foreign court.  Arca alleged that it was not true that the cause of their separation was desertion on her
part but that if defendant Alfredo Javier was in the United States at that time and she was
3. ID.; GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE UNDER ACT No. 2710; FOREIGN JUDGMENT not with him then it was because he was in active duty as an enlisted man of the United
CONTRARY TO LAWS OF THE FORUM, CANNOT BE ENFORCED. — Under section 1 States Navy, as a consequence of which he had to leave for the United States without her.
of Act No. 2710, the courts in the Philippines can grant divorce only on the ground of
She further alleged that since his departure from the Philippines for the United States, he he was then enlisted in the U.S. Navy. Nevertheless, the Circuit Court of Mobile County
had always supported her and her co-plaintiff Alfredo Javier Junior through allotments rendered judgment granting appellant a decree of divorce on April 9, 1941. 
made by the Navy Department of the United States Government. She denied, furthermore,
the allegation that she had abandoned defendant’s home at Naic, Cavite, and their The issue now to be determined is: Does this decree have a valid effect in this jurisdiction?
separation was due to physical impossibility for they were separated by about 10,000 miles
from each other. At this juncture, under the old Civil Code the wife is not bound to live with The issue is not new. This court has had already occasion to pass upon questions of
her husband if the latter has gone to ultramarine colonies. Plaintiff Salud R. Arca, in her similar nature in a number of cases and its ruling has invariably been to deny validity to the
answer to the complaint for divorce by defendant Alfredo Javier, prayed that the complaint decree. In essence, it was held that one of the essential conditions for the validity of a
for divorce be dismissed. However, notwithstanding Salud R. Arca’s averments in her decree of divorce is that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and in
answer, contesting the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, order that this may be acquired, plaintiff must be domiciled in good faith in the State in
to take cognizance of the divorce proceeding filed by defendant Alfredo Javier, as shown which it is granted (Cousins Hix v. Fluemer, 55 Phil., 851, 856). Most recent of such cases
by her answer marked Exhibit 2 (d), nevertheless the Circuit Court of Mobile County is Sikat v. Canson, 67 Phil., 207, which involves a case of divorce also based on the
rendered judgment decreeing dissolution of the marriage of Salud R. Arca and Alfredo ground of desertion. In that case, John Canson claimed not only that he had legal
Javier, and granting the latter a decree of divorce dated April 9, 1941, a certified copy of residence in the State of Nevada, where the action was brought, but he was an American
which is marked Exhibit 2(f). Thereupon, the evidence discloses that some time in 1946 citizen, although it was proven that his wife never accompanied him there but has always
defendant Alfredo Javier returned to the Philippines but went back to the United States.  remained in the Philippines, and so it has been held that: "it is not . . . the citizenship of the
plaintiff for divorce which confers jurisdiction upon a court, but his legal residence within
"In July, 1941 — that is after securing a divorce from plaintiff Salud R. Arca on April 9, the State." The court further said: "And assuming that John Canson acquired legal
1941 — defendant Alfredo Javier married Thelma Francis, an American citizen, and residence in the State of Nevada through the approval of his citizenship papers, this would
bought a house and lot at 248 Brooklyn, New York City. In 1949, Thelma Francis, not confer jurisdiction on the Nevada court to grant divorce that would be valid in this
defendant’s American wife, obtained a divorce from him for reasons not disclosed by the jurisdiction, nor jurisdiction that could determine their matrimonial status, because the wife
evidence, and, later on, having retired from the United States Navy, defendant Alfredo was still domiciled in the Philippines. The Nevada court never acquired jurisdiction over her
Javier returned to the Philippines, arriving here on February 13, 1950. After his arrival in person."cralaw virtua1aw library
the Philippines, armed with two decrees of divorce one against his first wife Salud R. Arca
and — the other against him by his second wife Thelma Francis — issued by the Circuit It is true that Salud R. Arca filed an answer in the divorce case instituted at the Mobile
Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA, defendant Alfredo Javier married Maria County in view of the summons served upon her in this jurisdiction, but this action cannot
Odvina before Judge Natividad Almeda- Lopez of the Municipal Court of Manila on April be interpreted as placing her under the jurisdiction of the court because its only purpose
19, 1950, marked Exhibit 2(b).  was to impugn the claim of appellant that his domicile or legal residence at that time was
Mobile County, and to show that the ground of desertion imputed to her was baseless and
"At the instance of plaintiff Salud R. Arca an information for bigamy was filed by the City false. Such answer should be considered as a special appearance the purpose of which is
Fiscal of Manila on July 25, 1950 against defendant Alfredo Javier with the Court of First to impugn the jurisdiction of the court over the case. 
Instance of Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 13310 and marked Exhibit 2(a).
However, defendant Alfredo Javier was acquitted of the charge of Bigamy in a decision In deciding the Canson case, this court did not overlook the other cases previously decided
rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila through Judge Alejandro J. Panlilio, dated on the matter, but precisely took good note of them. Among the cases invoked are
August 10, 1951, predicated on the proposition that the marriage of defendant Alfredo Ramirez v. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855; Cousins Hix v. Fluemer, 55 Phil., 851, and Barreto
Javier with Maria Odvina was made in all good faith and in the honest belief that his Gonzales v. Gonzales, 58 Phil., 67. In the cases just mentioned, this court laid down the
marriage with plaintiff Salud R. Arca had been legally dissolved by the decree of divorce following doctrines:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
obtained by him from the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA which had
the legal effect of dissolving the marital ties between defendant Alfredo Javier and plaintiff "It is established by the great weight of authority that the court of a country in which neither
Salud R. Arca. At this juncture, again, it is this court’s opinion that defendant Alfredo of the spouses is domiciled and to which one or both of them may resort merely for the
Javier’s acquittal in that Criminal Case No. 13310 of the Court of First Instance of Manila purpose of obtaining a divorce has no jurisdiction to determine their matrimonial status;
by Judge Panlilio was due to the fact that the accused had no criminal intent in contracting and a divorce granted by such a court is not entitled to recognition elsewhere. (See Note to
a second or subsequent marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting."cralaw Succession of Benton, 59 L. R. A., 143) The voluntary appearance of the defendant before
virtua1aw library such a tribunal does not invest the court with jurisdiction. (Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S.,
14; 47 L. ed., 366.) 
Appellant was a native born citizen of the Philippines who, in 1937, married Salud R. Arca,
another Filipino citizen. Before their marriage they had already a child, Alfredo Javier, Jr., "It follows that, to give a court jurisdiction on the ground of the plaintiff’s residence in the
who thereby became legitimated. In 1927 appellant enlisted in the U.S. Navy and in 1938 State or country of the judicial forum, his residence must be bona fide. If a spouse leaves
sailed for the United States aboard a navy ship in connection with his service leaving the family domicile and goes to another State for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce,
behind his wife and child, and on August 13, 1940, he filed an action for divorce in the and with no intention of remaining, his residence there is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction
Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, U.S.A., alleging as ground abandonment by his on the courts of the State. This is especially true where the cause of divorce is one not
wife. Having received a copy of the complaint, Salud R. Arca filed an answer alleging, recognized by the laws of the State of his own domicile. (14 Cyc. 817, 818.)" (Ramirez v.
among other things, that appellant was not a resident of Mobile County, but of Naic, Gmur, 82 Phil., 855.) . 
Cavite, Philippines, and that it was not true that the cause of their separation was
abandonment on her part but that appellant was in the United States, without her, because "But even if his residence had been taken up in good faith, and the court had acquired
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the divorce suit, the decree issued in his favor is not shall not be rendered without effect by any foreign laws or judgments or by anything done
binding upon the appellant; for the matrimonial domicile of the spouses being the City of or any agreements entered into a foreign country.’
Manila, and no new domicile having been acquired in West Virginia, the summons made
by publication, she not having entered an appearance in the case, either personally or by "‘It is therefore a serious question whether any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the
counsel, did not confer jurisdiction upon said court over her person." (Cousins Hix v. Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this Jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and
Fluemer, 55 Phil., 851.)  under conditions for which the courts of the Philippine Islands would grant a divorce.’

"At all times the matrimonial domicile of this couple has been within the Philippine Islands "The courts in the Philippines can grant a divorce only on the ground of ’adultery on the
and the residence acquired in the State of Nevada by the husband for the purpose of part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband’ as provided for under section 1
securing a divorce was not a bona fide residence and did not confer jurisdiction upon the of Act No. 2710. The divorce decree in question was granted on the ground of desertion,
court of the State to dissolve the bonds of matrimony in which he had entered in 1919." clearly not a cause for divorce under our laws. That our divorce law, Act No. 2710, is too
(Barretto Gonzales v. Gonzales, 58 Phil., 67.)  strict or too liberal is not for this court to decide. (Barretto Gonzales v. Gonzales, supra).
The allotment of powers between the different governmental agencies restricts the
In the light of the foregoing authorities, it cannot therefore be said that the Mobile County judiciary within the confines of interpretation, not of legislation. The legislative policy on the
Court of Alabama had acquired jurisdiction over the case for the simple reason that at the matter of divorce in this jurisdiction is clearly set forth in Act No. 2710 and has been upheld
time it was filed appellant’s legal residence was then in the Philippines. He could not have by this court (Goitia v. Campos Rueda, 35 Phil., 252; Garcia Valdez v. Soteraña Tuason,
acquired legal residence or domicile at Mobile County when he moved to that place in 40 Phil., 943-952; Ramirez v. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855; Chereau v. Fuentebella, 43 Phil., 216;
1938 because at that time he was still in the service of the U.S. Navy and merely rented a Fernandez v. De Castro, 48 Phil., 123; Gorayeb v. Hashim, supra; Francisco v. Tayao, 50
room where he used to stay during his occasional shore leave for shift duty. That he never Phil., 42; Alkuino Lim Pang v. Uy Pian Ng Shun and Lim Tingco, 52 Phil., 571; Cousins Hix
intended to live there permanently is shown by the fact that after his marriage to Thelma v. Fluemer, supra; and Barretto Gonzales v. Gonzales, supra). 
Francis in 1941, he moved to New York where he bought a house and a lot, and after his
divorce from Thelma in 1949 and his retirement from the U.S. Navy, he returned to the The above pronouncement is sound as it is in keeping with the well known principle of
Philippines and married Maria Odvina of Naic, Cavite, where he lived ever since. It may Private International Law which prohibits the extension of a foreign judgment, or the law
therefore be said that appellant went to Mobile County, not with the intention of affecting the same, if it is contrary to the law or fundamental policy of the State of the
permanently residing there, or of considering that place as his permanent abode, but for forum. (Minor, Conflict of Laws, pp. 8-14). It is also in keeping with our concept of moral
the sole purpose of obtaining divorce from his wife. Such residence is not sufficient to values which has always looked upon marriage as an institution. And such concept has
confer jurisdiction on the court.  actually crystalized in a more tangible manner when in the new Civil Code our people,
through Congress, decided to eliminate altogether our law relative to divorce. Because of
It is claimed that the Canson case cannot be invoked as authority or precedent in the such concept we cannot but react adversely to any attempt to extend here the effect of a
present case for the reason that the Haddeck case which was cited by the court in the decree which is not in consonance with our customs, morals, and traditions. (Article 11, old
course of the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Civil Code; Articles 15 and 17, new Civil Code; Gonzales v. Gonzales, 58 Phil., 67.) 
of Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287. This claim is not quite correct, for the Haddeck
case was merely cited as authority for the statement that a divorce case is not a With regard to the plea of appellant that Salud R. Arca had accused him of the crime of
proceeding in rem, and the reversal did not necessarily overrule the ruling laid down bigamy and consequently she forfeited her right to support, and that her child Alfredo
therein that before a court may acquire jurisdiction over a divorce case, it is necessary that Javier, Jr. is not also entitled to support because he has already reached his age of
plaintiff be domiciled in the State in which it is filed. (Cousins Hix v. Fluemer, supra.) At any majority, we do not need to consider it here, it appearing that these questions have already
rate, the applicability of the ruling in the Canson case may be justified on another ground: been passed upon in G. R. No. L-6706. 1 These questions were resolved against the
The courts in the Philippines can grant divorce only on the ground of adultery on the part of pretense of Appellant. 
the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband, and if the decree is predicated on
another ground, that decree cannot be enforced in this jurisdiction. Said the Court in the Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs. 
Canson case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . In Barretto Gonzales v. Gonzales (55 Phil., 67), we observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘. . . While the decisions of this court heretofore in refusing to recognize the validity of
foreign divorce has usually been expressed in the negative and have been based upon
lack of matrimonial domicile or fraud or collusion, we have not overlooked the provisions of
the Civil Code now enforced in these Islands. Article 9 thereof reads as
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity
of persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign country.’

"‘And Article 11, the last part of which reads:" ’. . . prohibitive laws concerning persons,
their acts and their property, and those intended to promote public order and good morals