G.R. No. 11796, August 5, 1918
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Samuel Bischoff Werthmuller died, leaving a valuable estate of which he disposed of by will wherein everything was given to his widow, Doña Ana Ramirez, except for a real property in Switzerland which he bequeathed in favor of his brothers and sisters. However, it turned out that he had an acknowledged daughter, Leona Castro. Leona Castro had two sets of children. She had three children with Frederick von Kauffman. Then, the husband obtained a divorce decree in Paris. Thereafter, she married Doctor Ernest Emil Mory and had three children with him. The Mory children and the Kauffman are all claiming the share of Leona Castro in the estate of Samuel Bischoff. The Supreme Court ruled that it was sufficiently proven that Leona Castro is an acknowledged daughter of the decedent. As a forced heir, Leona Castro, if living, was entitled to one-third of the estate and this share cannot be prejudiced by the will made by the decedent. The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce granted by the French court must be ignored as there was no bona fide residence established therein and thus the French court did not acquire jurisdiction to dissolve the matrimonial bonds between Leona Castro and Frederick von Kauffman. As a result, the claims of the Mory children to participate in the estate of Samuel Bischoff must be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated and acknowledged natural children so as children of adulterous relations, the Mory Children are wholly excluded.
FACTS:
Samuel Bischoff Werthmuller, native of the Republic of Switzerland, but for many years a resident of the Philippine Islands, died in the city of Iloilo on June 29, 1913, leaving a valuable estate of which he disposed of by will. A few days after his demise the will was offered for probate in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and, upon publication of notice, was duly allowed and established by the court. His widow, Doña Ana M. Ramirez, was named as executrix in the will, and to her accordingly letters testamentary were issued. By the will, everything was given to the widow, with the exception of a piece of real property located in the City of Thun, Switzerland, which was devised to the testator’s brothers and sisters. However, in the making of the will, the decedent ignored the possible claims of two sets of children, born to his natural daughter, Leona Castro. Samuel Bischoff tacitly recognized Leona as his daughter and treated her as such.
In the year 1895, Leona Castro was married to Frederick von Kauffman, a British subject, born in Hongkong, who had come to live in the city of Iloilo. Three children were born of this marriage, namely, Elena, Federico, and Ernesto. In the year 1904, Mr. Kauffman went to the City of Paris, France, for the purpose of obtaining a divorce from his wife under the French laws; a divorce was thereafter decreed on January 5, 1905, in favor of Mr. Kauffman and against his wife, Leona, in default. Though the record recites that Leona was then in fact residing at No. 6, Rue Donizetti, Paris, there is no evidence that she had acquired a permanent domicile in that city. Soon after the decree of divorce was entered, Doctor Ernest Emil Mory and Leona Castro married in the City of London, England. They had three children: Leontina Elizabeth, Carmen Maria, and Esther. On October 6, 1910, Leona Castro died.
In the present proceedings, Otto Gmur has appeared as the guardian of the three Mory claimants, while Frederick von Kauffman has appeared as the guardian of his own three children.
As will be surmised from the foregoing statement, the claims of both sets of children are founded upon the contention that Leona Castro was the recognized natural daughter of Samuel Bischoff and that as such she would, if living, at the time of her father’s death, have been a forced heir of his estate and would have been entitled to participate therein to the extent of a one-third interest. Ana M. Ramirez, as the widow of Samuel Bischoff and residuary legatee under his will, insists that Leona Castro had never been recognized at all by Samuel Bischoff. The Mory claimants argue that the bonds of matrimony which united Frederick von Kauffman and Leona Castro were dissolved by the decree of divorce and the marriage ceremony which was soon thereafter celebrated between Doctor Mory and Leona in London was in all respects valid; and that therefore these claimants are to be considered the legitimate offspring of their mother. The Kauffman claimants insisted that the decree of divorce was wholly invalid, that all three of the Mory children are the offspring of adulterous relations, and that the von Kauffman children, as the legitimate offspring of Leona Castro, are alone entitled to participate in the division of such part of the estate of Samuel Bischoff as would have been inherited by their mother, if living.
ISSUE:
Whether the children of Leona Castro (daughter of the deceased) from her wedding to Doctor Mory are entitled to a share in the estate of the deceased – NO because there was no valid divorce with regard to the first marriage of Leona Castro
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The status of Leona Castro as a recognized natural daughter of Samuel Bischoff is fully and satisfactorily shown. From the fact that Leona Castro was an acknowledged natural daughter of her father, it follows that had she survived him she would have been his forced heir and as such a forced heir she would have been entitled to one-third of the inheritance. With reference to the rights of the von Kauffman children, it is enough to say that they are legitimate children, born to their parents in lawful wedlock; and they are therefore entitled to participate in the inheritance which would have devolved upon their mother, if she had survived the testator.
The decree of divorce upon which reliance is placed by the representation of the Mory children cannot be recognized as valid in the courts of the Philippine Islands. The French tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an action for the dissolution of a marriage contracted in these Islands by persons domiciled here, such marriage being indissoluble under the laws then prevailing in this country. The evidence shows conclusively that Frederick von Kauffman at all times since earliest youth has been, and is now, domiciled in the city of Iloilo in the Philippine Islands; that he there married Leona Castro, who was a citizen of the Philippine Islands, and that Iloilo was their matrimonial domicile; that his departure from Iloilo for the purpose of taking his wife to Switzerland was limited to that purpose alone, without any intent to establish a domicile elsewhere; and finally that he went to Paris in 1904, for the sole purpose of getting a divorce, without any intention of establishing a permanent residence in that city. The evidence shows that the decree was entered against the defendant in default, for failure to answer, and there is nothing to show that she had acquired, or had attempted to acquire, a permanent domicile in the City of Paris. It is evident of course that the presence of both the spouses in that city was due merely to the mutual desire to procure a divorce from each other.
It is established by the great weight of authority that the court of a country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and to which one or both of them may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce has no jurisdiction to determine their matrimonial status; and a divorce granted by such a court is not entitled to recognition elsewhere. It follows that, to give a court jurisdiction on the ground of the plaintiff’s residence in the State or country of the judicial forum, his residence must be bona fide. If a spouse leaves the family domicile and goes to another State for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce, and with no intention of remaining, his residence there is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the courts of that State. This is especially true where the cause of divorce is one not recognized by the laws of the State of his own domicile.
As the divorce granted by the French court must be ignored, it results that the marriage of Doctor Mory and Leona Castro, celebrated in London in 1905, could not legalize their relations; and the circumstance that they afterwards passed for husband and wife in Switzerland until her death is wholly without legal significance. The claims of the Mory children to participate in the estate of Samuel Bischoff must therefore be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated, and acknowledged natural children. The children of adulterous relations are wholly excluded. The word “descendants,” as used in article 941 of the Civil Code cannot be interpreted to include illegitimates born of adulterous relations.
Indeed it is evident, under the express terms of the proviso to section 753 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the forced heirs cannot be prejudiced by the failure of the testator to provide for them in his will; and regardless of the intention of the testator to leave all his property, or practically all of it, to his wife, the will is intrinsically invalid so far as it would operate to cut of their rights.