PERSONS Doctrine: Renvoi Doctrine (Art.

15-17)
ROEHR vs. RODRIGUEZ GR No. 142820 
Date: June 20, 2003
Ponente: QUISUMBING, J.
WOLFGANG O. ROEHR MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, HON. JUDGE
JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge
of Makati RTC, Branch 149
Nature of the case: special civil action for certiorari, for (a) the order 1 dated September 30, 1999 of public
respondent Judge Josefina Guevara-Salonga, Presiding Judge of Makati Regional Trial Court, 2 Branch
149, in Civil Case No. 96-1389 for declaration of nullity of marriage, and for (b) the order 3 dated March 31,
2000 denying his motion for reconsideration
FACTS
 Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen and resident of Germany, married private respondent Carmen
Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Hamburg, Germany. Their marriage was subsequently
ratified on February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. 4 Out of their union were born Carolynne and
Alexandra Kristine on November 18, 1981 and October 25, 1987, respectively.

On August 28, 1996, private respondent filed a petition 5 for declaration of nullity of marriage before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. On February 6, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, 6 but it
was denied by the trial court in its order7 dated May 28, 1997.On June 5, 1997, petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration, but was also denied in an order8 dated August 13, 1997. On September 5, 1997,
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On November 27, 1998, the appellate
court denied the petition and remanded the case to the RTC.

Meanwhile, petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg-
Blankenese, promulgated on December 16, 1997. The parental custody for the children is granted to the
father. In view of said decree, petitioner filed a Second Motion to Dismiss on May 20, 1999 on the ground
that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or suit as a decree of divorce
had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage of petitioner and private respondent.

On September 30, 1999, respondent judge issued the assailed order partially setting aside her order
dated July 14, 1999 for the purpose of tackling the issues of property relations of the spouses as well as
support and custody of their children .Petitioner ascribes lack of jurisdiction of the trial court and grave
abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge saying that respondent Maria Carmen Rodriguez by
her motion for Partial Reconsideration had recognized and admitted the Divorce Decision obtained by her
ex-husband in Hamburg, Germany and there is nothing left to be tackled by the Honorable Court as there
are no conjugal assets alleged in the Petition for Annulment of Marriage and in the Divorce petition, and
the custody of the children had already been awarded to Petitioner Wolfgang Roehr.
ISSUE/S
WON judge gravely abused her discretion when she assumed and retained jurisdiction
over the present case despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree
from a German court.
RATIO
In Garcia v. Recio, Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., and Llorente v. Court of Appeals, we 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 issued by the German court has not been challenged by either of the
parties. In fact, save for the issue of parental custody, even the trial court recognized said decree to be
valid and binding, thereby endowing private respondent the capacity to remarry. Thus, the present
controversy mainly relates to the award of the custody of their two children to petitioner. As a general rule,
divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal
effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still be determined by our
courts. 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. It is essential that there should be an
opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly
determine its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in
personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima
facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.

In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given the opportunity to challenge the
judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment as res judicata with regard
to the rights of petitioner to have parental custody of their two children. The proceedings in the German
court were summary. As to what was the extent of private respondent’s participation in the proceedings in
the German court, the records remain unclear. The divorce decree itself states that neither has she
commented on the proceedings nor has she given her opinion to the Social Services Office. Unlike
petitioner who was represented by two lawyers, private respondent had no counsel to assist her in said
proceedings. More importantly, the divorce judgment was issued to petitioner by virtue of the German
Civil Code provision to the effect that when a couple lived separately for three years, the marriage is
deemed irrefutably dissolved. The 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. 

On the matter of property relations, judge exceeded the bounds of her jurisdiction. Private respondent
herself has admitted "[p]etitioner and respondent have not acquired any conjugal or community property
nor have they incurred any debts during their marriage." Herein petitioner did not contest this averment.
Basic is the rule that a court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof. Given the factual
admission by the parties in their pleadings that there is no property to be accounted for, respondent judge
has no basis to assert jurisdiction in this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in controversy.

In sum, we find that respondent judge may proceed to determine the issue regarding the custody of the
two children born of the union between petitioner and private respondent.  
WHEREFORE, the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149, issued on September 30,
1999 and March 31, 2000 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. We hereby declare that the trial court
has jurisdiction over the issue between the parties as to who has parental custody, including the care,
support and education of the children, namely Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine Roehr. Let the records of
this case be remanded promptly to the trial court for continuation of appropriate proceedings. No
pronouncement as to costs.
Notes