De la Rama v. De la Rama,
241 U.S. 154 (1916)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

De la Rama v. De la Rama, 241 U.S. 154 (1916)

De la Rama v. De la Rama

No. 216

Submitted April 18, 1916

Decided May 1, 1916

241 U.S. 154


The rule that local practice, sanctioned by the local courts, should not be disturbed, applied in this case to the union of two causes of action, one of divorce and the other separation of the conjugal property, and both within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of the Philippine Islands. An objection to the competency of the presiding judge which was not

Page 241 U. S. 155

made in the courts below, and could have been corrected if made in the trial court, cannot be tolerated in this Court except under the most peremptory requirements of law.

Due process of law does not forbid a hearing upon a transcript of evidence formerly heard in court, and where, as in this case, the parties assented to the course pursued.

As the evidence is not before this Court, and there is nothing in the record to control the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands that the method adopted by the Court of First Instance was substantially in accord with the method prescribed by the Code, this Court disallows an attempt to open questions of detail, no clear and important error being shown and the matter being one of local administration.

A discretion is recognized in regard to allowing interest even in matters of tort, and this Court will not hold that the court below erred in fixing the date at which, but for the law's delay, the money would have been paid, even though the appellate court did reduce the amount awarded by the trial court.

The review of judgments of this nature of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands is by appeal and not by writ of error.

The facts, which involve the validity of provisions in decree for divorce affecting division of conjugal property made by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, are stated in the opinion.

Page 241 U. S. 157

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.