Pilapil v Ibay-SomeraNationality Principle; Divorce

FACTS

Petitioner, Filipina Imelda Pilapil and respondent, German Erich Geiling got married in Germany and lived in Manila. After 3 yrs of discordant cohabitation, respondent filed for divorce in Germany, while petitioner filed for legal separation in the Philippines.

About 5 months after the issuance of the divorce decree by the Germany court, respondent filed 2 cases of adultery against petitioner, alleging that she had affairs with two different men during the subsistence of their marriage. Petitioner filed herein petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the jurisdiction the lower court to try and decide the criminal cases because adultery is a private offense that cannot be prosecuted de officio, since the purported complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse, having obtained a final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint.

ISSUE:

W/N the divorce decree by the Germany court may be recognized in the Philippines, thereby depriving respondent of his legal standing to file the 2 criminal cases

RULING:

YES. The fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned, in view of the nationality principle. Under this principle, 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.