G.R. No. 80116, June 20, 1989
Petitioner Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen and private respondent Erich Geiling, a German national, were married in Germany. Thereafter, marital discord set in, with mutual recriminations between the spouses, followed by a separation de facto between them.
After about 3 1/2 years of marriage, such connubial disharmony eventuated in private respondent initiating a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany. He claimed that there was failure of the marriage and that they had been living apart.
ISSUE: WON private respondent has cause of action after divorce?
HELD:
In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic in Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effect may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons.
Under the same considerations and rationale, private respondent, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
The allegation of private respondent that he could not have brought this case before the decrees of divorce for lack of knowledge, even if true, is of no legal significance or consequence in this case. When said respondent initiated the divorce proceeding, he obviously knew that there would be no longer be a family to nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the marriage is decreed. Neither would there be a danger of introducing spurious heirs into the family, which is said to be one of the reason for the particular formulation of our law on adultery, since there would be no spousal relationship to speak of.
No comments:
Post a Comment