G.R. No. 168785 , February 5, 2010
HERALD BLACK DACASIN, Petitioner, vs. SHARON DEL MUNDO DACASIN, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Herald Dacasin (American) and respondent Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin (Filipino) were married in Manila in April 1994 and had a daughter, Stephanie, born on September 21, 1995. In June 1999, respondent obtained a divorce decree from the Circuit Court, 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Illinois court), which dissolved the marriage, awarded respondent sole custody of Stephanie, and retained jurisdiction for enforcement purposes. On January 28, 2002, the parties executed in Manila a contract (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie, choosing Philippine courts as the exclusive forum for disputes and with respondent undertaking to obtain from the Illinois court an order relinquishing jurisdiction to Philippine courts. In 2004, petitioner sued respondent in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City to enforce the Agreement, alleging respondent violated it by exercising sole custody. Respondent sought dismissal for, among others, lack of jurisdiction due to the Illinois court’s retention of jurisdiction. The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding it was precluded by the Illinois court’s retained jurisdiction, the divorce decree was binding on petitioner under the nationality rule, and the Agreement was void for contravening Article 2035(5) of the Civil Code prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction. Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing the divorce decree obtained by respondent was void. The RTC denied reconsideration, holding the divorce decree binding on petitioner under his national law. Hence, this petition, where petitioner submits alternative theories: (1) the Agreement novated the valid divorce decree, modifying child custody from sole to joint; or (2) the Agreement is independent of the divorce decree.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s suit and enforce the Agreement on the joint custody of the parties’ child.

RULING

The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s suit but not to enforce the Agreement, which is void. However, factual and equity considerations militate against dismissal and call for remand to settle the question of Stephanie’s custody. The RTC is vested with jurisdiction to enforce contracts, as subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law; at the time of filing, RTCs had exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, such as an action for specific performance to enforce the Agreement. The trial court’s refusal was grounded not on lack of power but on the erroneous conclusion that the Illinois court’s divorce decree stripped it of jurisdiction; the Illinois court retained jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree, but petitioner’s suit seeks enforcement of the post-divorce Agreement, which lies beyond that retained jurisdiction. However, the trial court cannot enforce the Agreement as it is contrary to law and void ab initio. At the time of the Agreement’s execution, Stephanie was under seven years old, and the parties were no longer married due to the divorce decree. Under Philippine law, specifically the second paragraph of Article 213 of the Family Code, no child under seven years shall be separated from the mother, a mandatory rule for spouses separated in fact or in law, subject only to narrow exceptions not alleged here. The Agreement’s object to establish post-divorce joint custody over a child under seven contravenes this law. The Agreement is void for being contrary to law and has been repudiated by the mother’s refusal to allow joint custody. The imposed custodial regime under Article 213 is limited to the child’s seventh year, after which separated parents have freedom to agree on custody regimes. Petitioner cannot rely on the divorce decree’s alleged invalidity (that it was obtained by his Filipino spouse) to support the Agreement’s enforceability, as under Van Dorn v. Romillo, an alien spouse is bound by a foreign divorce decree obtained abroad. The case is remanded to the trial court to determine the question of Stephanie’s custody under the parameters of Philippine law, as the Illinois court’s award of sole custody to respondent may not necessarily be conclusive given the child’s relocation to the Philippines and potential changes in circumstances.