Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
v
RODRIGUEZ
FACTS:
1. Wolfgang
Roehr,
a
German
citizen
and
resident
of
Germany
married
Carmen
Rodriguez
a
Filipina,
in
Hamburg,
Germany.
2. Their
marriage
was
ratified
in
Negros
Occidental.
3. Subsequently,
Rodriguez
filed
a
petition
for
declaration
of
nullity
of
marriage
between
the
RTC.
A
motion
to
dismiss
was
filed
by
Roehr
but
was
denied.
4. Upon
appeal,
the
petition
for
certiorari
filed
by
the
petitioner
was
denied
by
the
CA
and
remanded
the
case
to
the
RTC.
5. Meanwhile,
Roehr
obtained
a
decree
of
divorce
on
Germany
and
the
marriage
between
the
parties
was
dissolved.
The
parental
custody
of
the
children
was
granted
to
Roehr
6. In
view
of
said
decree,
Roehr
filed
a
Second
Motion
to
Dismiss
on
the
ground
that
the
trial
court
had
no
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter
of
the
action
or
suit
as
a
divorce
decree
had
already
been
promulgated
dissolving
the
marriage
between
him
and
Rodriguez.
7. RTC
granted
the
motion
to
dismiss.
8. Rodriguez
filed
a
Motion
for
Partial
Reconsideration,
with
a
prayer
than
the
case
proceed
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
issues
of
custody
of
children
and
the
distribution
of
the
properties
between
the
petitioner
and
private
respondent.
9. Roehr
opposed
this
on
the
ground
that
nothing
more
is
to
be
done
for
the
marital
tie
had
already
been
severed
by
the
divorce
decree
obtained
in
Germany
and
that
said
decree
has
already
been
recognized
by
the
RTC
through
the
implementation
of
Article
26,
endowing
petitioner
to
remarry
under
the
PH
law.
10. The
respondent
judge
partly
set
aside
the
order
to
tackle
the
issues
of
property
and
support
and
custody
of
the
children.
11. Hence,
this
petition.
ISSUE:
W/N
the
RTC
has
jurisdiction
to
retain
the
present
case
HELD:
1. A
divorce
obtained
by
an
alien
may
be
recognized
in
our
jurisdiction
provided
such
decree
is
valid
according
to
the
national
law
of
the
foreigner.
However,
the
legal
effects
thereof,
must
still
be
determined
by
out
courts.
2. Before
the
courts
can
give
the
effect
of
res
judicata
to
a
foreign
judgment,
such
as
the
award
of
custody,
it
must
be
shown
that
the
parties
opposed
to
the
judgment
had
been
given
ample
opportunity
to
do
so
on
grounds
allowed
by
Section
48,
Rule
39.
Judgment
may
be
repelled
by
evidence
of
a
want
of
jurisdiction,
want
of
notice
to
the
party,
collusion,
fraud,
or
clear
mistake
of
law
or
fact.
3. It
is
essential
that
there
should
be
an
opportunity
to
challenge
the
foreign
judgment
in
order
for
the
court
in
this
jurisdiction
to
properly
determine
its
efficacy.
4. In
actions
in
personam,
the
foreign
judgment
merely
constitutes
a
prima
facie
evidence
of
the
justness
of
the
claim
of
a
party
and
as
such,
subject
to
proof
to
the
contrary.
5. In
the
case
at
bar,
private
respondent
was
not
given
the
opportunity
to
challenge
the
judgment
of
the
Germant
court
that
there
will
be
the
basis
declaring
that
judgment
as
res
judicata
with
regards
to
the
right
of
the
petitioner
to
the
parental
custody
of
their
two
children.
The
proceeding
in
the
German
courts
were
summary.
There
was
no
comment
on
the
divorce
decree
by
Rodriguez.
No
counsel
to
Rodriguez.
More
importantly,
the
divorce
judgment
was
issued
to
petitioner
by
virtue
of
the
German
Civil
Code
provision
to
the
effect
that
when
a
couple
lived
separately
for
three
years,
the
marriage
is
deemed
irrefutably
dissolved.
The
decree
did
not
touch
on
the
issue
as
to
who
the
offending
spouse
was.
Absent
any
finding
that
private
respondent
is
unfit
to
obtain
custody
of
the
children,
the
trial
court
was
correct
in
setting
the
issue
for
hearing
to
determine
the
issue
of
parental
custody,
care,
support
and
education
mindful
of
the
best
interests
of
the
children.
*On
the
issue
of
partially
modifying
her
issued
order:
It
is
clear
from
the
foregoing
rules
that
a
judge
can
order
a
partial
reconsideration
of
a
case
that
has
not
yet
attained
finality.
Considering
that
private
respondent
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration
within
the
reglementary
period,
the
order
can
still
be
modified.
Moreover,
in
Saado
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
we
held
that
the
court
could
modify
or
alter
a
judgment
even
after
the
same
has
become
executory
whenever
circumstances
transpire
rendering
its
decision
unjust
and
inequitable,
as
where
certain
facts
and
circumstances
justifying
or
requiring
such
modification
or
alteration
transpired
after
the
judgment
has
become
final
and
executory
and
when
it
becomes
imperative
in
the
higher
interest
of
justice
or
when
supervening
events
warrant
it.