Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Mao dayun ni ang sa dacasin :Sub-scene 1 DACASIN v DACASIN

Narrator In 1994, Sharon and Herald got married in the Philippines. The following year, Sharon
got pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl whom they named Stephanie. Herald lost his job and
became a very lazy husband adding up to sharon’s burden. His sluggishness continued for
years causing Sharon to file a divorce case in illinios court. She succeeded in obtaining the
divorce decree dissolving their marriage and she was awarded the sole custody of their child.
Setting: dining table
[ Scene 1 ]
Sharon: Ano , nakahanap ka na ba ng trabaho?”
Herald: (silence)
Sharon: uy, sumagot ka!
H : bigyan mo pa ako ng panahon
S: anong panahon? Ilang taon kanang walang trabaho, Herald! Maawa ka naman sa akin.
Pagod na pagod na ako. Ako nalang ang sumasalo sa lahat. Ako na nga nagbabayad ng
kuryente, ako pa naglilinis ng bahay tapos ako pa nagbabantay sa anak natin! Wala ka ng
kwenta sa pamilya!
H : pinabundak ano bang gusto mong mangyari, Sharon?
S: gusto ko ng makipaghiwalay sayo herald! Pagod na ako!
H: o, sige, pag usapan natin kanino mapupunta si Stephanie!

Narrator: The Filipina wife filed a divorce in the US which was then granted. Former spouses
then executed an Agreement for the joint custody of their minor daughter but such was not
recognized by the Philippine court as it contravenes the law that a seven year old child should
be in the custody of the mother. Later on, the husband which was a US Citizen sued his Filipina
wife for the exercise of sole custody of the child, invoked

Narrator: The court reiterated the Paragraph of Article 26 of EO No. 209 issued by Pres.
Corazon Aquino, which states that it, “confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the
effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the
validity of the dissolution of the marriage.' It authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a
foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine
courts cannot try the case on the merits because it is tantamount to trying a divorce case. Under
the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of
foreign nationality, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care and support of the
children or property relations of the spouses, must still be determined by our courts.
The Court is tasked to resolve whether, under the same provision, a Filipino citizen has the
capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and
obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry.
THE COURT RULES IN AFFIRMATIVE.
Let’s take a look at some other cases ruled by the court.
Narrator: In Dacasin, post-divorce, the former spouses 'executed an Agreement for the joint
custody of their minor daughter. Later on, the husband, who is a US citizen, sued his Filipino
wife to enforce the Agreement, alleging that it was only the latter who exercised sole custody of
their child. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground, among
others, that the divorce decree is binding following the "nationality rule" prevailing in this
jurisdiction. The husband moved to reconsider, arguing that the divorce decree obtained by his
former wife is void, but it was denied. In ruling that the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the
suit but not to enforce the Agreement, is void.

DACASIN v DACASIN Former spouses were married in Manila. They have one daughter,
Stephanie. Filipina spouse sought and obtained from the Illinois court a divorce decree against
her American husband. The Illinois court dissolved the marriage and awarded to the wife sole
custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes. Former
spouses then executed in Manila a contract for the joint custody of Stephanie. The parties
chose Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes arising from the Agreement.
Respondent undertook to obtain from the Illinois court an order relinquishing jurisdiction to
Philippine courts. The husband sued his former spouse in the RTC of Makati City for the alleged
violation of the said agreement. The former spouse sought the dismissal of the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction because of the Illinois courts retention of jurisdiction to enforce the divorce
decree. The trial court sustained the former wife's motion and dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction. The former husband then sought reconsideration, raising the new argument that the
divorce decree obtained by the wife is void. Thus, the divorce decree is no bar to the trial courts
exercise of jurisdiction over the case. The trial court denied reconsideration, holding that the
divorce decree is binding on the husband under the laws of his nationality. The Agreement is
not only void ab initio for being contrary to law, it has also been repudiated by the mother when
she refused to allow joint custody by the father. The Agreement would be valid if the spouses
have not divorced or separated because the law provides for joint parental authority when
spouses live together. However, upon separation of the spouses, the mother takes sole custody
under the law if the child is below seven years old and any agreement to the contrary is void. It
should be clear by now that a foreign divorce decree carries as much validity against the alien
divorcee in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of the aliens nationality, irrespective of
who obtained the divorce.