#sue upton

[film-o-teka]

The Benny Hill Show

#The Benny Hill Show #Benny Hill #Gilian Adams #Corinne Russell #Sue Upton #Elfrida Ashworth #Louise English #aerobic #1983 #Slapstick comedy #Comedy #Comedy Show #Sketch comedy #British comedy #British tv #British tv series #british tv show #gif #80s #1980s #80s gif #1980s gif #80s tv gif #tv gif #tv gifs #tv show gif #tv shows gif #tv series gif #1980s tv #80s tv

[minisinmedia]

Sue Upton as Sexy Racer wearing super short white gym short shorts/hot pants on The Benny Hill Show

#sue upton #the benny hill show #benny hill #short shorts #hot pants #shorts #mini shorts #super short shorts #legs #long legs #bare legs #70s #1970s #gym shorts #sports shorts

[therealjohnstewart]

#Sue Upton

#sue upton #hillsangels

[blackros78]

Gee Newton and Sue Upton, Two Stars of Benny Hill's "Hill's Angels", 1979

#gee newton #sue upton #1970s #70s babe #the benny hill show #hill's angels #1979

[habit-forming]

Sue Upton

#retro #pinupgal #pinupgirl #pinupmodel

[creepingirrelevance]

Louise English and Sue Upton, "Down The Road," The Benny Hill Show, 1981.

#1980s #vintage tv #dance #scene #glamour #cheesecake #piernas

[kwebtv]

Doctor at Large - ITV - February 28, 1971 - September 12, 1971

Comedy (29 episodes)

Running Time: 30 minutes

Stars:

Barry Evans as Dr Michael Upton

George Layton as Dr Paul Collier

Geoffrey Davies as Dr Dick Stuart-Clark

Richard O'Sullivan as Dr Lawrence Bingham

Ernest Clark as Professor Geoffrey Loftus

Arthur Lowe as Dr Maxwell

Madeline Smith as Sue Maxwell

Fabia Drake as Dr Whiteland

Brian Oulton as Dr Griffin

#Doctor at Large #TV #Comedy #ITV #1970's #Barry Evans

[vergaracarbonepublicidad-panama]

La serie favorita 📺 The Benny Hill Show El show de Benny Hill ( 1955 - 1989 ) 👱‍♂️👱‍♀️🏃‍♂️🏃‍♀️🤣😂😆 Reparto: Benny Hill, Jackie Wright, Henry McGee , Bob Tod ,Sue Upton. Cadena : BBC de Londres Primer episodio: 15 de enero de 1955 Último episodio: 1 de mayo de 1989 (en Videofoto Panama) https://www.instagram.com/p/CjzDAADNG4Z/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[solomon104]

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Van Dorn v. Romillo

G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985

Facts:

Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972. In 1982 they were divorced in Nevada, USA. Petitioner re-­married in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

In 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in the RTC of Pasay City stating that petitioner Alice’s business in Ermita, Manila, the Galleon Shop, is their conjugal property and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had “no community property”. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.

Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings. Respondent on the other hand maintain that,the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.

ISSUE:

What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines?

HELD:

The divorce decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union.

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

Blaze

0 notes

[juztize]

Case Digest - Article 15 (NCC)

G. R. No. L-68470; October 8, 1985

ALICE REYES VAN DORN, Petitioner vs. HON. MANUEL V. RAMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CXV, Regional Trial Court National Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTON, Respondents

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

FACTS:

In this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn seek to set aside the Orders, dated

September 15, 1983 and August 3, 1984, in Civil Case No. 1075-P, issued by respondent Judge, which denied her Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, respectively.

Petitioner Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States; that thy were married in Hongkong in 1972; that after the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines; that they begot two children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively; that the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re-married also in Nevada with Theodore Van Dorn.

That on June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against her before the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, Pasay City, asking that she be ordered to render an accounting of her business known as Galleon Shop, Ermita, Manila, which Upton alleged to be a conjugal property.

That petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from claiming the alleged conjugal property because their marriage has already been divorced. Upton, for his part asserts that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court, a foreign court, cannot prevail over the declared national policy of the Philippines which prohibits divorce.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Divorce issued by Nevada Court is recognized by the Philippine laws and is thus valid.

HELD:

YES. The divorce is recognized by the Philippine Laws and it is valid.

Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizen of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

Only Filipino citizens are covered by the policy against absolute divorce, as it is considered contrary to the concept of public policy and morality. Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided that they are valid according to their National Law.

In this sense, the Philippine laws recognize the validity of the Nevada divorce since the respondent is an American citizen, private respondent bound by the decision of his own country’s Court which validly exercised jurisdiction over him.

Therefore, private respondent cannot sue petitioner and claim on the alleged conjugal property, as the former is no longer the husband of the latter.

[film-o-teka]

The Benny Hill Show

#The Benny Hill Show #Benny Hill #Sue Upton #Nola Haynes #Jackie Wright #1981 #Slapstick comedy #Comedy #Comedy Show #Sketch comedy #British comedy #80s #1980s #80s tv #1980s tv #80s tv shows #80s tv series #1980s television #1980s tv shows #80s tv show #gif #tv gif #tv gifs #tv show gif #tv shows gif #tv series gif #80s gif #1980s gif #80s tv gif

[orfealfonso]

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Van Dorn v. Romillo

G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985

Facts:

Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972. In 1982 they were divorced in Nevada, USA. Petitioner re-­married in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

In 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in the RTC of Pasay City stating that petitioner Alice’s business in Ermita, Manila, the Galleon Shop, is their conjugal property and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had “no community property”. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.

Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings. Respondent on the other hand maintain that,the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.

ISSUE:

What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines?

HELD:

The divorce decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union.

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

[minisinmedia]

Upton, Jenny Westbrook and Suzy Mandel as hitchhikers wearing some VERY short short-shorts on The Benny Hill Show

#sue upton #jenny westbrook #suzy mandel #the benny hill show #benny hill #short shorts #1970s #jean shorts #denim shorts #non iron bars a cage #legs #bare legs

[therealjohnstewart]

Sue Upton

#sue upton #hills angels

[hildagarcia]

ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR.

G.R. No. L-68470              October 8, 1985

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972 and established their residence in the Philippines. They begot two children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively. But the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982 and the petitioner had remarried also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

On July 8, 1983, Richard Upton filed a suit against petitioner, asking that Alice Van Dorn be ordered to render an accounting of her business in Ermita, Manila and be declared with right to manage the conjugal property.

Issue:

Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in Nevada is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

Held: yes

As to Richard Upton, the divorce is binding on him as an American Citizen. Owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. The divorce is likewise valid as to the petitioner.

As such, pursuant to his national law, private respondent Richard Upton is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue Alice Van Dorn to exercise control over conjugal assets. He was bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he did not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

[michm-law]

G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985

ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTON respondents.

Alice Reyes Van Dorn, petitioner seeks to set aside the Orders, dated September 15, 1983 and August 3, 1984, in Civil Case No. 1075-P, issued by respondent Judge, which denied her Motion to Dismiss said case, and her Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, respectively.

Facts :

This case is about an American and a Filipina who got married and had 2 children. Alice Reyes and Richard Upton were married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the marriage, they established their residence in in the Philippines and had 2 children on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively; that the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn

In 1983 ,Upton, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in Civil Case No. 1075-P of the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in Pasay City, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop, for short), is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no community property" as of June 11, 1982.

The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss in the mentioned case on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case. The denial is now the subject of this certiorari proceeding.

Issue :

What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines?

Ruling :

The petition is granted and respondent judge was ordered to dismiss the complaint by the husband CIVIL CASE 1075 P.

In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. Thus pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

#@judge princess #@motherjudgeprincess