View full case

WOLFGANG O. ROEHR v. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by private respondent Carmen Rodriguez against petitioner Wolfgang Roehr. They were married in Germany on December 11, 1980 and the marriage was ratified in the Philippines on February 14, 1981. Private respondent, being a Filipina, filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City on August 28, 1996.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which was initially denied by the trial court. Petitioner appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals, but it was denied and the case was remanded to the RTC.

During the pendency of the case, petitioner obtained a divorce decree from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankensee in Germany on December 16, 1997. The divorce decree granted parental custody to petitioner and dissolved the marriage. Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss the case based on the divorce decree, which was initially granted by the trial court.

However, private respondent filed a motion for partial reconsideration, asking the court to proceed with the determination of issues relating to the property settlement and custody of their children. The trial court partially set aside its order of dismissal and allowed the case to continue for these purposes. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the trial court.

Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari, challenging the trial court's orders and arguing that the court had no jurisdiction over the case and that there was no need for further proceedings since the divorce decree had already been obtained. The issues in the case include whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in partially modifying its order and whether it retained jurisdiction over the case despite the divorce decree.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing her order dated September 30, 1999, which partially modified her order dated July 14, 1999.

  2. Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her discretion when she assumed and retained jurisdiction over the present case despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from a German court.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that respondent judge did not gravely abuse her discretion in issuing the order dated September 30, 1999. The Court held that the order was issued to resolve issues relating to the property settlement of the spouses and the custody of their children. It was in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, which was included as an amendment through Executive Order 227, to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino still being married to his or her alien spouse even if the latter obtained a divorce abroad that is recognized by his or her national law. The order of respondent judge was therefore valid and within her jurisdiction.

  2. The Court held that respondent judge did not gravely abuse her discretion when she assumed and retained jurisdiction over the present case despite the fact that petitioner had obtained a divorce decree from a German court. The Court explained that the divorce decree obtained by petitioner did not automatically dissolve the marriage in the Philippines. The recognition and effect of the foreign divorce decree in the Philippines is governed by Article 26 of the Family Code. The decree only granted the father parental custody over the children, but it did not dissolve the property relations of the spouses and determine the support and custody of the children. Therefore, respondent judge had jurisdiction to resolve these issues.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides that in cases where a Filipino is still married to an alien spouse who has obtained a divorce abroad that is recognized by his or her national law, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. This provision was included as an amendment through Executive Order 227 to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino still being married to his or her alien spouse even if the latter obtained a divorce abroad.

  • A foreign divorce decree does not automatically dissolve a marriage in the Philippines. The recognition and effect of the foreign divorce decree in the Philippines is governed by Article 26 of the Family Code. The decree may only grant parental custody over the children, but it does not dissolve the property relations of the spouses and determine the support and custody of the children. Therefore, the Philippine court still has jurisdiction to resolve these issues.