Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Barnuevo vs. Fuster

Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yanez were married in Spain but lived in the Philippines, where Fuster acquired property. They agreed to live separately, with Fuster providing Yanez a monthly allowance. Yanez filed for divorce in a Philippine court, seeking the dissolution of the marriage and division of property. Fuster argued the Philippine court lacked jurisdiction. The court ruled it had jurisdiction over divorce proceedings involving parties resident in the Philippines, even if they were Spanish citizens, as jurisdiction relates to public law and territory rather than private law governing individuals.

Uploaded by

Justin Loredo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Barnuevo vs. Fuster

Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yanez were married in Spain but lived in the Philippines, where Fuster acquired property. They agreed to live separately, with Fuster providing Yanez a monthly allowance. Yanez filed for divorce in a Philippine court, seeking the dissolution of the marriage and division of property. Fuster argued the Philippine court lacked jurisdiction. The court ruled it had jurisdiction over divorce proceedings involving parties resident in the Philippines, even if they were Spanish citizens, as jurisdiction relates to public law and territory rather than private law governing individuals.

Uploaded by

Justin Loredo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Barnuevo vs. Fuster: Details the legal case of Barnuevo vs. Fuster, providing facts, issues, and the ruling regarding jurisdiction for divorce.

Barnuevo vs.

Fuster
Facts:
Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yanez were married in Spain. Fuster came to
the Philippines, settled, and acquire property. After several years, Yanez also went to
the Philippines to live with his husband. Subsequently, they made an agreement in
a public instrument by which they resolved to live apart and Fuster authorizing
Yanez to go back to Spain and reside therein. Fuster also undertook to gove Yanez a
monthly allowance for support. Yanez returned to the Philippines and commenced
divorce proceedings against her husband. She prayed that she be granted a decree
of divorce; that the court order the separation of the properties of the plaintiff and
the defendant, to date from the date of the said decree; that the conjugal society be
therefore liquidated, and after the amount of the conjugal property had been
determined, that one-half thereof be adjudicated to her; furthermore, as to the
amount of pension owing for her support but not paid to her, that the defendant be
ordered to pay her the sum of 36,000 Spanish pesetas. As a special preferred
defense, Fuster alleged that neither the trial court nor any other court in the
Philippine Islands has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, because,
as to the allowance for support, since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are
residents of Manila, or of any other place in the Philippine Islands In deciding the
case, the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila held itself to have jurisdiction,
decreed the suspension of life in common between the plaintiff and defendant. Both
parties appealed from this judgment
Issue:
Whether the courts of the Philippines are competent or have jurisdiction to
decree the divorce now on appeal
Ruling:
The authority of jurisdictional power of courts to decree a divorce is not
comprised within the personal status of the husband and wife, simply because the
whole theory of the statutes and of the rights which belong to everyone does not go
beyond the sphere of private law, and the authority and jurisdiction of the courts
are not a matter of the private law of persons, but of the public or political law of
the nation. "The jurisdiction of courts and other questions relating to procedure are
considered to be of a public nature and consequently are generally submitted to the
territorial principle. The provisions of article 80 of the Civil Law of Spain is only
binding within the dominions of Spain. It does not accompany the persons of the
Spanish subject wherever he may go. He could not successfully invoke it if he
resided in Japan, in China, in Hongkong or in any other territory not subject to the
dominion of Spain. Foreign Catholics domiciled in Spain, subject to the ecclesiastical
courts in actions for divorce according to the said article 80 of the Civil Code, could
not allege lack of jurisdiction by invoking, as the law of their personal statute, a law

of their nation which gives jurisdiction in such a case to territorial courts, or to a


certain court within or without the territory of their nation. In the present action for
divorce the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila did not lack jurisdiction over
the persons of the litigants, for, although Spanish Catholic subjects, they were
residents of this city and had their domicile herein.

You might also like