MANUELA BARRETTO GONZALEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AUGUSTO C. GONZALEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. AUGUSTO C. GONZALEZ, JR., ET AL., INTERVENORS AND APPELLEES.

Plaintiff
and defendant are citizens of the Philippine Islands and at present
residents of the City of Manila, They were married in the City of
Manila on January 19, 1919, and lived together as man and wife in the
Philippine Islands until the Spring of 1926. They voluntarily separated
and since that time have not lived together as man and wife. Of this
union four children were born who are now 11, 10, 8, and 6 years of
age. Negotiations between the parties, both being represented by
attorneys, continued for several months, whereupon it was mutually
agreed to allow the plaintiff for her support and that of her children,
five hundred pesos (P500) monthly; this amount to be increased in case
of illness or necessity, and the title of certain properties to be put
in her name. Shortly after this agreement the husband left the Islands,
betook himself to Reno, Nevada, and secured in that jurisdiction an
absolute divorce on the ground of desertion, which decree was dated
November 28, 1927. Shortly thereafter the defendant moved to California
and returned to these Islands in August 1928, where he has since
remained. On the same date that he secured the divorce in Nevada he
went through the forms of marriage with another citizen of these
Islands and now has three children as a result of that marriage.
Defendant, after his departure from these Islands, reduced the amount
he had agreed to pay monthly for the support of his wife and four minor
children and has not made the payments fixed in the Reno divorce as
alimony.

Shortly after his return his wife brought action in
the Court of First Instance of Manila requesting that the courts of the
Philippine Islands confirm and ratify the decree of divorce issued by
the courts of the State of Nevada; that section 9 of Act No. 2710,
which reads as follows:

“The decree of
divorce shall dissolve the community of property as soon as such decree
becomes final, but shall not dissolve the bonds of matrimony until one
year thereafter.

“The bonds of matrimony shall not be
considered as dissolved with regard to the spouse who, having
legitimate children, has not delivered to each of them or to the
guardian appointed by the court, within said period of one year, the
equivalent of what would have been due to them as their legal portion
if said spouse had died intestate immediately after the dissolution of
the community of property.”

be enforced, and that she and the defendant deliver to the guardian ad litem
the equivalent of what would have been due to their children as their
legal portion from the respective estates had their parents died
intestate on November 28, 1927. It is also prayed that the community
existing between plaintiff and defendant be declared dissolved and the
defendant be ordered to render an accounting and to deliver to the
plaintiff her share of the community property, that the defendant be
ordered to pay the plaintiff alimony at the rate of five hundred pesos
(P500) per month, that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff,
as counsel fees, the sum of five thousand pesos (P5,000), and that the
defendant be ordered to pay plaintiff the expenses incurred in
educating the three minor sons.

A guardian ad litem
was appointed for the minor children, and they appear as intervenors
and join their mother in these proceedings. The Court of First
Instance, after hearing, found against the defendant and granted
judgment as prayed for by plaintiff and intervenors, with the exception
of reducing attorneys fees to three thousand, and also granted costs of
the action against the defendant. From this judgment defendant appeals
and makes the following assignment of errors:

“I.
The lower court erred in not declaring that paragraph 2 of section 9 of
the Philippine Divorce Law, is unconstitutional, null and void.

“II. The lower court erred in holding that section 9 of Act No. 2710
(Divorce Law) applies to the Nevada decree of divorce issued in favor
of appellant Augusto C. Gonzalez, said decree being entitled to
confirmation and recognition.

“III. The lower court erred
in not dismissing the com- plaint in intervention for lack of cause of
action against appellant and appellee.

“IV. The lower court erred in not declaring the notice of lis pendens filed by intervenors to be null and void.

“V. The trial court erred in ordering the appellant to pay the sum of
P500 per month for the support not only of his children but also of his
ex-wife, appellee herein, Manuela Barretto.

“VI. The trial
court erred in not holding that plaintiff-appellee, Manuela Barretto,
is not entitled to support from her ex-husband, herein appellant, over
and beyond the alimony fixed by the divorce decree Exhibit A.

“VII. The trial court erred in condemning defendant-appellant to pay to plaintiff-appellee P3,000 attorney’s fees.

“VIII. The lower court erred in denying appellant’s motion for new trial.”

While the parties in this action are in dispute over financial matters
they are in unity in trying to secure the courts of this jurisdiction
to recognize and approve of the Reno divorce. On the record here
presented this can not be done. The public policy in this jurisdiction
on the question of divorce is clearly set forth in Act No. 2710, and
the decisions of this court: Goitia vs. Campos Rueda (35 Phil., 252); Garcia Valdez vs. Soteraña Tuason (40 Phil., 943-952); Ramirez vs. Gmur (42 Phil., 855); Chereau vs. Fuentebella (43 Phil., 216); Fernandez vs. De Castro (48 Phil., 123); Gorayeb vs. Hashim (50 Phil., 22); Francisco vs. Tayao (50 Phil., 42); Alkuino Lim Pang vs. Uy Pian Ng Shun and Lim Tingco (52 Phil., 571); and the late case of Cousins Hix vs. Fluemer, decided March 21, 1931, and reported in 55 Phil., 851.

The entire conduct of the parties from the time of their separation
until the case was submitted to this court, in which they all prayed
that the Reno divorce be ratified and confirmed, clearly indicates a
purpose to circumvent the laws of the Philippine Islands regarding
divorce and to secure for themselves a change of status for reasons and
under conditions not authorized by our law. At all times the
matrimonial domicile of this couple has been within the Philippine
Islands and the residence acquired in the State of Nevada by the
husband for the purpose of securing a divorce was not a bona fide
residence and did not confer jurisdiction upon the court of that State
to dissolve the bonds of matrimony in which he had entered in 1919.
While the decisions of this court heretofore in refusing to recognize
the validity of foreign divorce has usually been expressed in the
negative and have been based upon lack of matrimonial domicile or fraud
or collusion, we have not overlooked the provisions of the Civil Code
now in force in these Islands. Article 9 thereof reads as follows:

“The
laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition,
and legal capacity of persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though
they reside in a foreign country.”

And article 11, the last part of which reads:

“*
* * the prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts and their
property, and those intended to promote public order and good morals,
shall not be rendered without effect by any foreign laws or judgments
or by anything done or any agreements entered into in a foreign
country.”

It is therefore a serious
question whether any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the
Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this jurisdiction, except it
be for a cause, and under conditions for which the courts of the
Philippine Islands would grant a divorce. The lower court in granting
relief as prayed for frankly stated that the securing of the divorce,
the contracting of another marriage and the bringing into the world of
innocent children brings about such a condition that the court must
grant relief. The hardships of the existing divorce laws of the
Philippine Islands are well known to the members of the Legislature. It
is of no moment in this litigation what the personal views of the
writer on the subject of divorce may be. It is the duty of the courts
to enforce the laws of divorce as written by the Legislature if they
are constitutional. Courts have no right to say that such laws are too
strict or too liberal.

Litigants by mutual agreement can not
compel the courts to approve of their own actions or permit the
personal relations of the citizens of these Islands to be affected by
decrees of foreign courts in a manner which our Government believes is
contrary to public order and good morals. Holding the above views it
becomes unnecessary to discuss the serious constitutional question
presented by appellant in his first assignment of error.

The
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila must
therefore be reversed and defendant absolved from the demands made
against him in this action. This, however, without prejudice to any
right of maintenance that plaintiff and the intervenors may have
against defendant. No special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Abad Santos, Vickers, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.