FE DE QUITA V.
CA controversy before the court as to who are the lawful
FACTS:
1. Fe D. Quita and Arturo Padlan were married in the
Philippines. They have no children. However, their
relationship turned sour. Fe sued Arturo for divorce in
San Francisco, California.She submitted in the divorce
proceedings a private writing dated 19 July 1950
evidencing their agreement to live separately from
each other and a settlement of their conjugal
properties.
a. The divorce was granted. Fe subsequently
married Felix which also ended in divorce.
Undeterred, she married for the third time to
Wernimont.
2. Arturo died leaving no will. Javier filed a petition with
RTC for issuance of letters of administration concerning
the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust
Company.
3. Blandina Dandan opposed the motion claiming that
she was the surviving spouse of Arturo and that they
had 6 children.
4. Ruperto, brother of Arturo, claimed that he was the
sole surviving brother of Arturo.
5. Petitioner Fe, however, moved for the immediate
declaration of heirs of the decedent. The trial court
required the submission of the records of birth of the 6
children, however, the records were not submitted.
6. TC: Fe and Ruperto are the only heirs.
a. Divorce in a foreign jurisdiction is not recognized
in the PH, therefore, the divorce of Fe and Arturo
is disregarded.
b. The extrajudicial settlement entered into by Fe
and Arturo is not valid due to lack of judicial
approval.
c. It was not proven that the 6 children were
acknowledged by Arturo.
7. MR: partially granted. The children are considered as
heirs.
8. Blandina appealed contending that the case was
decided without hearing, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 90,
of the Rules of Court, which provides that if there is a
heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive
shares to which each person is entitled under the law,
the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
ordinary cases.
9. CA: agreed with Blandina. Remand the case to the TC.
ISSUE: WON the case should be remanded to the TC, there
being a controversy?
HELD:
1. Although there is no dispute that exists as to the right
of the children, there is still a controversy that remains
which is: who is the legitimate surviving spouse.
2. The Trial court relied on the doctrine in Tenchavez v.
Escao, wherein a divorce on foreign jurisdiction shall
not be recognized in the PH.
3. However, based from the admissions of Petitioner that
Arturo remained a Filipino, it can be implied that
petitioner may not be a Filipino Citizen during her
divorce with Arturo.
a. In the case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are
valid according to their national law.
4. When asked whether she was an American citizen
petitioner answered that she was since 1954.[19]
Significantly, the decree of divorce of petitioner and
Arturo was obtained in the same year. Petitioner
however did not bother to file a reply memorandum to
erase the uncertainty about her citizenship at the time
of their divorce, a factual issue requiring hearings to
be conducted by the trial court.
5. While it is to be remanded, the question to be
determined by the trial court should be limited only to
the right of petitioner to inherit from Arturo as his
surviving spouse. Private respondent's claim to
heirship was already resolved by the trial court. She
and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the
prior marriage of petitioner and Arturo was subsisting
thereby resulting in a bigamous marriage considered
void