Você está na página 1de 2

Topic

Paula Llorente vs Court of Appeals and Alicia Llorente


GR No. 124371; 23 November 2000

Facts:
 Lorenzo Llorente, enlisted serviceman of US Navy, married Paula before a parish priest in Nabua, Camarines
Sur. Before the outbreak of Pacific War, Lorenzo departed for US and Paula stayed in their conjugal home in
Camsur.
 Lorenzo was admitted to US citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization was issued in his favor by US District
Court, NY.
 Lorenzo returned to the Philippines to visit his Paula. Upon discovery that Paula was pregnant and living in
with his brother Ceferino, Lorenzo drew a notarized written agreement regarding allowances, dissolution of
marriage, separation of conjugal property.
 Lorenzo returned to US and obtained a divorce decree from the County of San Diego.
 Lorenzo returned to the Philippines and married Alicia Llorente, who had no knowledge of the first marriage.
 Lorenzo executed Last Will and Testament and bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children.
Then filed a petition for probate and allowance of his last will and testament
 RTC: finding the will was duly executed, trial court admitted the will to probate.
 Before proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died.
 Paula filed with same court a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor. Paula
contended she was Lorenzo’s surviving spouse, encroaching on her legitime and ½ share in the conjugal
property.
 RTC: divorce decree granted Lorenzo is void and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage he
contracted with Alicia is void. Court finds Paula’s petition meritorious and declared the intrinsic disposition of
will as void and declares her entitled as conjugal partner and entitled to ½ of their conjugal properties as
primary compulsory heir, and 1/3 shall go to the illegitimate children.
 Paula appointed as legal administrator of estate of deceased.
 Alicia filed a motion for reconsideration.
 RTC: denied but modified earlier decision stating that Raul and Luz are not children legitimate or otherwise of
Lorenzo since they were not legally adopted by him.
 CA: affirmed decision of trial court with modification, declaring Alicia as co-owner of whatever properties she
and deceased may have acquired during the 25 years of cohabitation.
Issues:
1. W/N the divorce decree is valid
2. W/N the will was valid.
Ruling:
1. YES
 The fact that Lorenzo became an American citizen long before the (1) divorce from Paula, (2) marriage to
Alicia (3) execution of will and (4) death is duly established, admitted and undisputed. The issues arising from
these incidents are necessarily governed by foreign law.
 Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
 While the trial court stated that the law of New York was not sufficiently proven, in the same breath it made
the categorical, albeit equally unproven statement that American law follows the ‘domiciliary theory’ hence,
Philippine law applies when determining the validity of Lorenzo’s will.
 FIRST, There is no such thing as American Law.
o The “national law” indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to general American
law. There is no such law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United States.
o Each State of the union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in force only within the State. It
can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the decedent was a resident.
 SECOND, there is no showing that the application of renvoi is called for by NY State law
o The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of the will, already probated as
duly executed in accordance with the formalities of Philippine law, is fatal, especially in light of the
factual and legal circumstances here obtaining.
 In Van Dorn v Romillo Jr, the Court held that owing to the nationality principle in Article 15 CC, only
Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary
to our concept of public policy and morality. Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid
according to their national law.
 In Pilapil v Ibay Somera, the Court recognized the divorce obtained by the respondent in his country, the
Federal Republic of Germany. It was held that divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the
Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status
of persons.
 Failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of CA must be reversed. We hold that the divorce obtained by
Lorenzo N. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity
2. YES
 Art 17 CC provides that forms and solemnities of wills shall be governed by laws of the country in which they
are executed.
 The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife and children is glaringly shown I the
will executed. The Court does not wish to frustrate his wishes since he was a foreigner, not covered by our
laws on family right and duties, status, condition and legal capacity.
 Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo are issues best proved by foreign law
which must be pleaded and proved. Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities
required is answered by referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly probated.

Você também pode gostar