Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS :
Petitioner Roerh, a German citizen married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, in Hamburg,
Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. They had two
daughters.
Private respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage at the RTC of Makati Branch on August
28, 1996. Petitioner filed a motion for divorce in the Court of First Instance in Germany on November 4, 1997. The CFI
granted their divorce and also granted the petitioner to have the custody of their two children.
Respondent Judge Guevara-Salonga issued an order granting petitioner’s plea which regards to the decree of
divorce promulgated on July 14, 1999. The private respondent filed a motion for partial reconsideration for the purpose
of determining the custody of children and the distribution of the properties. The petitioner opposed to the motion in
view of the fact that said decree of divorce had already been recognized by the RTC and there’s nothing to be done
anymore with him and to the private respondent. This made the respondent issue another order to partially setting aside
her previous order for the purpose of tackling the issues of the private respondent.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing an order and partially modifying it.
2. Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her discretion when she assumed and retained jurisdiction
over the present case despite the fact that the petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from a German
Court.
HELD:
1. If the court finds that excessive damages have been awarded or that the judgment or final order is contrary to
the evidence or law, a judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality. (Rules
of Civil Procedure; Rule 16, Sec.3 and Rule 37, Sec. 7)
2. As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction,
but the legal effects thereto, must still be determined by our courts. Private respondent should be given the
opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German Court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment as
re judicata with regard to the rights of petitioner to have parental custody of their two children. On the matter of
property relations, private respondent admitted in Paragraph 14 of her petition that: “petitioner and respondent
have not acquired any conjugal or community property nor have they incurred any debts during their marriage.”