The marriage of the Parties contracted on 11 December 1980 before the Civil

G.R. No. 142820. June 20, 2003. *

Registrar of Hamburg-Altona is hereby dissolved.

WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, vs. MARIA CARMEN D.
RODRIGUEZ, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, _______________
Presiding Judge of Makati RTC, Branch 149, respondents.
2
 Judge Josefina Guevara-Salonga signed as Executive Judge.
Civil Law; Family Code; Marriages; Nullity of 3
 Rollo, p. 16.
Marriage; Judgments; Foreign Judgment; The court could modify or alter a 4
 Records, pp. 5-6.
 Id., at pp. 1-4.
judgment even after the same has become executory.—The court could modify or
5

6
 Id., at pp. 19-28.
alter a judgment even after the same has become executory whenever circumstances 7
 Id., at p. 147.
transpire rendering its decision unjust and inequitable, as where certain facts and 8
 Id., at p. 165.
circumstances justifying or requiring such modification or altera-
_______________
498

*
 SECOND DIVISION. 49 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
496 8 ANNOTATED
Roehr vs. Rodriguez
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS The parental custody for the children
     Carolynne Roehr, born 18 November 1981
96 ANNOTATED      Alexandra Kristine Roehr, born on 25 October 1987
is granted to the father.
Roehr vs. Rodriguez The litigation expenses shall be assumed by the Parties. 9

tion transpired after the judgment has become final and executory and when
it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events
In view of said decree, petitioner filed a Second Motion to Dismiss on
warrant it.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Before the courts can give the May 20, 1999 on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the
effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, it must be shown that the parties opposed subject matter of the action or suit as a decree of divorce had already been
to the judgment have been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed promulgated dissolving the marriage of petitioner and private respondent.
under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court.—As a general rule, divorce decrees On July 14, 1999, Judge Guevara-Salonga issued an order granting
obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Private respondent filed a Motion for Partial
legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still be Reconsideration, with a prayer that the case proceed for the purpose of
determined by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a
determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of the
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 properties between petitioner and private respondent.
opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of On August 18, 1999, an Opposition to the Motion for Partial
Court. Reconsideration was filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A foreign judgment merely nothing to be done anymore in the instant case as the marital tie between
constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party.—It is essential petitioner Wolfgang Roehr and respondent Ma. Carmen D. Rodriguez had
that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the already been severed by the decree of divorce promulgated by the Court of
court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our
First Instance of Hamburg, Germany on December 16, 1997 and in view of
Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in personam, as
distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima the fact that said decree of divorce had already been recognized by the
facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof RTC in its order of July 14, 1999, through the implementation of the
to the contrary. mandate of Article 26 of the Family Code,  endowing the petitioner with
10

the capacity to remarry under the Philippine law.

_______________
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
9
 Rollo, p. 33.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 10
 Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in
     Manuel C. Moyco for petitioner. force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this
country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
     Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar for private respondent. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry,
the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. ( As amended by
QUISUMBING, J.: E.O. No. 227, dated July 17, 1987.)

At the core of the present controversy are issues of (a) grave abuse of 499
discretion allegedly committed by public respondent and (b) lack of VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 499
jurisdiction of the regional trial court, in matters that spring from a divorce
decree obtained abroad by petitioner. Roehr vs. Rodriguez
In this special civil action for certiorari, petitioner assails (a) the On September 30, 1999, respondent judge issued the assailed order
order  dated September 30, 1999 of public respondent Judge Josefina
1 partially setting aside her order dated July 14, 1999 for the purpose of
Guevara-Salonga, Presiding Judge of Makati Regional Trial tackling the issues of property relations of the spouses as well as support
_______________ and custody of their children. The pertinent portion of said order provides:
Acting on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order dated July 14, 1999
1
 Rollo, p. 15. filed by petitioner thru counsel which was opposed by respondent and considering
that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code was included as an
497 amendment thru Executive Order 227, to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as
being still married to his or her alien spouse though the latter is no longer married to
VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 497 the Filipino spouse because he/she had obtained a divorce abroad which is recognized
by his/her national law, and considering further the effects of the termination of the
Roehr vs. Rodriguez marriage under Article 43 in relation to Article 50 and 52 of the same Code, which
Court,  Branch 149, in Civil Case No. 96-1389 for declaration of nullity of
2 include the dissolution of the property relations of the spouses, and the support and
marriage, and (b) the order  dated March 31, 2000 denying his motion for
3
custody of their children, the Order dismissing this case is partially set aside with
respect to these matters which may be ventilated in this Court.
reconsideration. The assailed orders partially set aside the trial court’s
SO ORDERED.  (Emphasis supplied.)
order dismissing Civil Case No. 96-1389, for the purpose of resolving
11

issues relating to the property settlement of the spouses and the custody of
Petitioner filed a timely motion for reconsideration on October 19, 1999,
their children.
which was denied by respondent judge in an order dated March 31, 2000.
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen and resident of
12

Petitioner ascribes lack of jurisdiction of the trial court and grave

Germany, married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on
abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge. He cites as grounds for
December 11, 1980 in Hamburg, Germany. Their marriage was
his petition the following:
subsequently ratified on February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros
Oriental.  Out of their union were born Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine
4

on November 18, 1981 and October 25, 1987, respectively.

On August 28, 1996, private respondent filed a petition  for
1. 1.PARTIALLY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
JULY 14, 1999 DISMISSING THE INSTANT CASE IS
5

declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of

NOT ALLOWED BY 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
Makati City. On February 6, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss,  but
PROCEDURE.
6

it was denied by the trial court in its order  dated May 28, 1997.
13

On June 5, 1997, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was 2. 2.RESPONDENT MARIA CARMEN RODRIGUEZ BY HER
also denied in an order  dated August 13, 1997. On September 5, 1997,
8
MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION HAD
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On RECOGNIZED AND ADMITTED THE DIVORCE
November 27, 1998, the appellate court denied the petition and remanded DECISION OBTAINED BY HER EXHUSBAND IN
the case to the RTC. HAMBURG, GERMANY. 14

Meanwhile, petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of 3. 3.THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO BE TACKLED BY THE
First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese, promulgated on December 16, HONORABLE COURT AS THERE ARE NO CONJUGAL
1997. The decree provides in part: ASSETS ALLEGED
[T]he Court of First Instance, Hamburg-Blankenese, Branch 513, has ruled through
Judge van Buiren of the Court of First Instance on the basis of the oral proceedings
_______________
held on 4 Nov. 1997:
  Supra, note 1.
11

 Supra, note 3.
12
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
 Rollo, p. 6.
13

 Id., at p. 8.
14
2 ANNOTATED
500 Roehr vs. Rodriguez
Relevant to the present case is Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,  where this Court
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
22

specifically recognized the validity of a divorce obtained by a German

0 ANNOTATED citizen in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. We held
in Pilapil that a foreign divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in
Roehr vs. Rodriguez the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the
nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons.
In this case, the divorce decree issued by the German court dated
1. IN THE PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE December 16, 1997 has not been challenged by either of the parties. In
AND IN THE DIVORCE PETITION, AND THE fact, save for the issue of parental custody, even the trial court recognized
CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN HAD ALREADY BEEN said decree to be valid and binding, thereby endowing private respondent
AWARDED TO PETITIONER WOLFGANG ROEHR. 15
the capacity to remarry. Thus, the present controversy mainly relates to the
award of the custody of their two children, Carolynne and Alexandra
Pertinent in this case before us are the following issues: Kristine, to petitioner.
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other
countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects
1. 1.Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still be
discretion in issuing her order dated September 30, 1999, determined by our courts.  Before our courts can give the effect of res
23

which partially modified her order dated July 14, 1999; and judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner
2. 2.Whether or not respondent judge gravely abused her by the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the
discretion when she assumed and retained jurisdiction over judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed
the present case despite the fact that petitioner has already under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Section 48,
obtained a divorce decree from a German court. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), to wit:
SEC. 50. Effect of foreign judgments.—The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a
foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows:
On the first issue, petitioner asserts that the assailed order of respondent
judge is completely inconsistent with her previous order and is contrary to
Section 3, Rule 16, Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: 1. (a)In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is
Sec. 3. Resolution of motion.—After the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or conclusive upon the title to the thing;
claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading. 2. (b)In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive
The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in
ground relied upon is not indubitable. interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
therefor. (Emphasis supplied.) collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

Petitioner avers that a court’s action on a motion is limited to dismissing _______________

the action or claim, denying the motion, or ordering the amendment of the
pleading.  G.R. No. 80116, 30 June 1989, 174 SCRA 653, 663.
22

Private respondent, on her part, argues that the RTC can validly  Llorente v. Court of Appeals, supra at 602.
23

reconsider its order dated July 14, 1999 because it had not yet attained
503
finality, given the timely filing of respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
Pertinent to this issue is Section 3 in relation to Section 7, Rule 37 of VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 503
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
Sec. 3. Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration.—The trial court may set Roehr vs. Rodriguez
aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial, upon such terms as may be It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign
just, or may deny the motion. If the court finds judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine
_______________
its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide that
 Ibid.
15
with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in
rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the
501 justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the
contrary. 24

VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 501 In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given
Roehr vs. Rodriguez the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so that
that excessive damages have been awarded or that the judgment or final order is there is basis for declaring that judgment as res judicata with regard to the
contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend such judgment or final order rights of petitioner to have parental custody of their two children. The
accordingly. proceedings in the German court were summary. As to what was the extent
Sec. 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration.—If the grounds for a motion under of private respondent’s participation in the proceedings in the German
this Rule appear to the court to affect the issues as to only a part, or less than all of court, the records remain unclear. The divorce decree itself states that
the matters in controversy, or only one, or less than all, of the parties to it, the court neither has she commented on the proceedings  nor has she given her
25

may order a new trial or grant reconsideration as to such issues if severable without opinion to the Social Services Office.  Unlike petitioner who was
26

interfering with the judgment or final order upon the rest. (Emphasis supplied.)
represented by two lawyers, private respondent had no counsel to assist her
in said proceedings.  More importantly, the divorce judgment was issued to
It is clear from the foregoing rules that a judge can order a partial
27

petitioner by virtue of the German Civil Code provision to the effect that
reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality. Considering that
when a couple lived separately for three years, the marriage is deemed
private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration within the
irrefutably dissolved. The decree did not touch on the issue as to who the
reglementary period, the trial court’s decision of July 14, 1999 can still be
offending spouse was. Absent any finding that private respondent is unfit
modified. Moreover, in Sañado v. Court of Appeals,  we held that the court
to obtain custody of the children, the trial court was correct in setting the
16

could modify or alter a judgment even after the same has become
issue for hearing to determine the issue of parental custody, care, support
executory whenever circumstances transpire rendering its decision unjust
and education mindful of the best interests of the children. This is in
and inequitable, as where certain facts and circumstances justifying or
consonance with the provision in the Child and Youth Welfare Code that
requiring such modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has
the child’s welfare is always the paramount consideration in all questions
become final and executory  and when it becomes imperative in the higher
concerning his care and custody.
17

interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it.  In our view,
28

18

_______________
there are even more compelling reasons to do so when, as in this case,
judgment has not yet attained finality.  Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, 19 June 1997, 274
24

Anent the second issue, petitioner claims that respondent judge SCRA 102, 110.
committed grave abuse of discretion when she partially set aside her order  Rollo, p. 57.
25

 Ibid.
dated July 14, 1999, despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a
26

 Id., at pp. 55-56.

27

divorce decree from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg, Germany.  Sagala-Eslao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116773, 16 January 1997, 266 SCRA 317, 321,
28

In Garcia v. Recio,  Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.,  and Llorente v. Court

19 20
citing Art. 8, P.D. No. 603, The Child and Youth Welfare Code.
of Appeals,  we consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien
21

504
may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid
according to the national law of the foreigner. 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
_______________
4 ANNOTATED
 G.R. No. 108338, 17 April 2001, 356 SCRA 546, 561.
Roehr vs. Rodriguez
16

 David v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115821, 13 October 1999, 316 SCRA 710, 719.
17

 People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, 29 September 1999, 315 SCRA 461, 463.

18
On the matter of property relations, petitioner asserts that public
 G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001, 366 SCRA 437, 447.
respondent exceeded the bounds of her jurisdiction when she claimed
19

 No. L-68470, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 139, 143.

20

 G.R. No. 124371, 23 November 2000, 345 SCRA 592, 601.

21 cognizance of the issue concerning property relations between petitioner
and private respondent. Private respondent herself has admitted in Par. 14
502 of her petition for declaration of nullity of marriage dated August 26, 1996
filed with the RTC of Makati, subject of this case, that: “[p]etitioner and
respondent have not acquired any conjugal or community property nor
have they incurred any debts during their marriage.”  Herein petitioner did
29

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
30

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. Private respondent erred, however, in
claiming cognizance to settle the matter of property relations of the parties,
which is not at issue.
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.
SO ORDERED.
     Bellosillo (Chairman) and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
_______________

Art. 8. Child’s Welfare Paramount.—In all questions regarding the care, custody,
education and property of the child, his welfare shall be the paramount consideration.
29
 Rollo, p. 19.
30
 JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124293, 20 November
2000, 345 SCRA 143, 154.

505

VOL. 404, JUNE 20, 2003 5

05
Lanzaderas vs. Amethyst Security and
General Services, Inc.
     Austria-Martinez, J., On official leave.

Judgment affirmed with modification.