Private International Law - #010
Querubin v. Querubin (1950)
Doctrine: The judgments of foreign courts cannot be enforced in the Philippines if they are contrary to law, customs
and public order.
(*Note: THE CASE IS IN FREAKING SPANISH. I hope I understood the case correctly.)
Facts:
- In 1943, appellee Silvestre Querubin – a native of Caoayan, Ilocos Sur who left for the US to study in 1926
and began living there since 1934 – married Appellant Margarita Querubin in Albaquerque, New Mexico.
Their union bore a daughter, Querubina Querubin.
- In 1948, Margarita brought an action for divorce before the Superior Court of Los Angeles on the ground
of “mental cruelty.” Silvestre by way of counterclaim claimed that the former wife was unfaithful, as she
had been living with another man. The Superior Court granted a divorce decree due to Margarita’s
infidelity. In an interlocutory order, it also provided for the following:
o Silvestre was awarded custody of Querubina, who should be maintained in a neutral home
subject to visitation rights;
o While Margarita can visit the child, she cannot take her home because of her adulterous
relationship with another man; and
o They cannot remove the child from the State of California without prior consent of the Court.
- In November 1949, Silvestre returned to his native Caoayan, Ilocos Sur, bringing Querubina with him.
- Thus, the Superior Court of Los Angeles modified the earlier order at the request of Margarita.
o Custody was transferred from Silvestre to Margarita. The court found that she was now married
to another man with access to means of support, had a well-equipped home, and possessed
motherly qualities.
o Silvestre was ordered to pay $50 a month in support.
- In February 1950, Margarita filed a petition for habeas corpus before the CFI of Ilocos Sur, citing the LA
court decree awarding her custody. This was denied by the CFI.
- Hence, this appeal.
Issue/s:
- WoN the LA Court’s Interlocutory Order awarding custody to Margarita can be enforced in the Philippines.
Held/Ratio:
NO.
IT IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER WHICH DOES NOT SETTLE THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES WITH FINALITY.
- As a general rule, judgments of another court rendered on the merits are conclusive on the judgment of
another state. However, interlocutory orders such as this one are not final decisions on the merits. They
are subject to change and by their nature are not final. Where the judgment is merely interlocutory, the
determination of the question by the Court which rendered it did not settle and adjudge finally the rights
of the parties.
CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT THE MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY AWARD.
- In general, a divorce decree entrusting the custody of a child of the marriage one of the spouses is
respected by the courts of other states "at the time and under the circumstances of its rendition.”
However, such decree does not have controlling effect as to subsequent facts and conditions. The courts
of the latter state may, in proper proceedings, award the custody to another party upon proof of matters
and conditions subsequent to the decree which justify the change in the interest of the child.
- In the present case, the circumstances have changed. The child is no longer in the US – she now lives in
Ilocos Sur with her father. On the one hand, there is no evidence that Margarita can cover the expenses
necessary to come to the Philippines and exercise custody over Querubina, to bring her back to the US, or
to answer for her food, care and education. On the other hand, Silvestre has P2,000 deposited in the bank
and is employed as a teacher with a P250-salary.
- This change in circumstances thus allow our courts sufficient leeway in modifying judgments previously
rendered in other jurisdictions as the needs and interest of the child dictates.
- As such, Querubina’s interests would be better looked after if she is under the care of her father.
THE ORDER WAS CONTRARY TO LAW CUSTOMS AND PUBLIC ORDER.
- The judgments of foreign courts cannot be enforced in the Philippines if they are contrary to law, customs
and public order. If such decisions, for the simple theory of reciprocal international courtesy and civility,
are sufficient for our courts to decide on the basis of the same, then our courts would be in poor position
of having to issue statements contrary to our laws, customs and public order.
- Accordingly, the Court said that it could not, “without remorse of conscience, have delivered the child to
the appellant.” It cited the following laws as justification:
o Art. 171, Civil Code: “Los Tribunales podran privar a los padres de la patria potestad, o suspender
el ejercicio de esta, si trataren a sus hijos con dureza excesiva, o si les dieren ordenes, consejos o
ejemplos corrutores.” ("the court may deprive parents of custody , or suspend the exercise of
this, if they treat their children too harshly, or if they give corrupt orders, advice or examples.”)
o Divorce Act No. 2710: the guilty spouse has no right to the custody of minor children.
- Given current legislation, the interests of morality and public order dictate that the child must be out of
the care of a mother who has violated her oath of fidelity with her husband. As such, the Court said that it
should not enforce a decree issued by a foreign court which is in contravention of our laws and the sound
principles of morality which characterize our social structure on family relationships.
- In the instant case, if custody is given to Margarita, Querubina would be under the care of someone
judicially declared guilty of marital infidelity and would be forced to live with the man who dishonored his
mother and offended his father. She would come to puberty with the idea that a woman who was
unfaithful to her husband is entitled to custody of her daughter. On the alternative, if the request is
denied, she would live with her father with the benefit of exclusive paternal care, not the divided
attention of a mother who has to attend to her husband, her two daughters and a third child.
- For the welfare of the minor Querubina, which is what matters most in this case, the custody of the father
should be considered preferable.
Digested by: Oyie Javelosa (A2015)
