Roehr v. Rodriguez et al. (Case Digest)

Roehr v. Rodriguez et al.
G.R. No. 142820
June 20, 2003

WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner,
vs.
MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge of Makati RTC, Branch 149, respondents.

Facts:
Wolfgang Roehr, a German citizen and resident of Germany, married Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11, 1980, in Germany. They had two daughters. On August 28, 1996, Carmen filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage at the Makati RTC, but the petition was denied. Meanwhile, Wolfgang Roehr obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese, promulgated on December 16, 1997. The custody of the two children was granted to Wolfgang by the said court.

Because of this, Wolfgang filed a Second Motion to Dismiss on May 20, 1999, on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter since there is already a divorce decree obtained abroad. Judge Guevara-Salonga granted the motion to dismiss. Carmen, however, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, praying that the case should proceed for the purpose of determining the issues of custody of their children and the distribution of the properties. The judge issued an order partially setting aside her order to dismiss for the purpose of tackling the issues of property relations of the spouses as well as the custody of the children.

Issue:
Can our courts take cognizance of the custody issue of the children?

Ruling:
Yes. First, it is important to point out that the divorce was validly obtained and is recognized in the Philippines. It has been consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. In this case, the divorce decree has not been questioned by either party. Only the custody of the children is doubted.

While the court in Germany that granted the divorce decree has decided regarding the custody of the children, as a general rule, the legal effects of divorce, even if obtained abroad, must still be determined by our courts. This includes issues on custody and care and support of children. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner 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. It should be noted that the proceedings in the German court were merely summary. It cannot be said that Carmen Rodriguez was given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court. While Wolfgang was represented by two counsels, Rodriguez had no lawyers to assist her in the proceedings.

In addition, the divorce 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. This is in consonance with the provision in the Child and Youth Welfare Code that the child’s welfare is always the paramount consideration in all questions concerning his care and custody.

Thus, the court may proceed to determine the issue regarding the custody of the two children.