Roehr v.

Rodriguez

WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, vs. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, HON.

JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA
G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003

Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez,
a Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified on
February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union were born Carolynne and
Alexandra Kristine.

Carmen filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Makati Regional Trial
Court (RTC). Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied.

Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg-
Blankenese. Said decree also provides that the parental custody of the children should be vested
to Wolfgang.

Wolfgang filed another motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as a divorce decree had already
been promulgated, and said motion was granted by Public Respondent RTC Judge Salonga.

Carmen filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer that the case precedes for the
purpose of determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of the properties
between her and Wolfgang. Judge Salonga partially set aside her previous order for the purpose
of tackling the issues of support and custody of their children.

1st Issue: Whether or not Judge Salonga was correct in granting a partial motion for
reconsideration.

Ruling: Yes.

A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality, as in the
case at bar.

The Supreme Court goes further to say that the court can 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.

2nd issue: Whether or not Judge Salonga's act was valid when she assumed and retained
jurisdiction as regards child custody and support.
Ruling: Yes.

As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in
our jurisdiction. But the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children,
must still be determined by our courts.

Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of
custody to Wolfgang by the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the
judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section
50 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given the opportunity to
challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment as
res judicata with regard to the rights of Wolfgang to have parental custody of their two children.
The proceedings in the German court were summary. As to what was the extent of Carmens
participation in the proceedings in the German court, the records remain unclear.

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.

Note: Res Judicata

[Latin, A thing adjudged.] A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is
conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been
litigated in that suit.The U.S. legal system places a high value on allowing a party to litigate a civil lawsuit
for money damages only once. U.S. courts employ the rule of res judicata to prevent a dissatisfied party
from trying to litigate the issue a second time.

Res judicata will be applied to a pending lawsuit if several facts can be established by the party asserting
the res judicata defense. First, the party must show that a final judgment on the merits of the case had
been entered by a court having jurisdiction over the matter. This means that a final decision in the first
lawsuit was based on the factual and legal disputes between the parties rather than a procedural defect,
such as the failure to serve the defendant with legal process.

Once a court makes a final decision, it enters a final judgment in the case. The judgment recites pertinent
data about the case, such as the names of the parties, the fact that a jury verdict was rendered, and the
disposition made. The judgment is filed with the court administrator for that judicial jurisdiction.