FACTS:

Lorenzo Llorente and petitioner Paula Llorente were married in 1937 in the
Philippines. Lorenzo was an enlisted serviceman of the US Navy. Soon after, he left
for the US where through naturalization, he became a US Citizen. Upon his
visitation of his wife, he discovered that she was living with his brother and a child
was born. The child was registered as legitimate but the name of the father was
left blank. Llorente filed a divorce in California, which later on became final. He
married Alicia and they lived together for 25 years bringing 3 children. He made
his last will and testament stating that all his properties will be given to his
second marriage. He filed a petition of probate that made or appointed Alicia his
special administrator of his estate. Before the
proceeding could be terminated, Lorenzo died. Paula filed a letter of
administration over Llorentes estate. The trial granted the letter and denied the
motion for reconsideration. An appeal was made to the Court of Appeals, which
affirmed and modified the judgment of the Trial Court that she be declared coowner of whatever properties, she and the deceased, may have acquired during
their 25 years of cohabitation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the National Law shall apply.
RULING:
Lorenzo Llorente was already an American citizen when he divorced Paula. Such
was also the situation when he married Alicia and executed his will. As stated in
Article 15 of the civil code, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided that they
are validly required in their National Law. Thus the divorce obtained by Llorente is
valid because the law that governs him is not Philippine Law but his National Law
since the divorce was contracted after he became an American citizen.
Furthermore, his National Law allowed divorce.
The case was remanded to the court of origin for determination of the intrinsic
validity of Lorenzo Llorentes will and determination of the parties successional
rights allowing proof of foreign law.

Llorente vs. CA
Nationality Principle: Conflicts Rules
FACTS: Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente were married in Camarines Sur. Before the outbreak of
the Pacific War, Lorenzo left for the US Navy while Paula stayed in their conjugal home in Camarines
Sur. Lorenzo was admitted to US citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization was issued in his favor.
When Lorenzo was allowed to visit his wife in the Philippines, he discovered his wife was pregnant and
was living in and having an adulterous relationship with his brother, Ceferino Llorente. Lorenzo refused
to forgive Paula and the two drew a written agreement which essentially shows that Paula admitted her
adulterous acts and that the couple agreed to separate.
Lorenzo returned to the US and filed for divorce which was granted. Lorenzo returned to the Philippines
and married Alicia Llorente. Alicia had no knowledge of the first marriage even if they resided in the
same town as Paula, who did not oppose the marriage or cohabitation. Lorenzo and Alicia lived together
for 25 years and produced 3 children.
Before Lorenzo died, he executed a will, which was pending before the probate court, bequeathing all
his property to Alicia and their 3 children. After Lorenzo died, Paula filed with the same court a petition
for letters of administration over his estate in his favor. Alicia filed as well.
RTC found that the divorce decree granted to Lorenzo is void and inapplicable in the Philippines
therefore the marriage he contracted with Alicia is void. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce is valid.
HELD: YES.
In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., the court held that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of
the CC, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being
considered contrary to the concept of public policy and morality. In the same case, the court ruled that
aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.
Furthermore, in the case of Quita v. CA, that once proven that respondent was no longer a Filipino
citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable
and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from him.
For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the CA must be reversed. The divorce obtained by
Lorenzo from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. (The
SC remand the case to the TC for ruling on the intrinsic validity of the will is left to the TC.)