G.R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Orlando B. Catalan was a naturalized American citizen. After allegedly obtaining a divorce in the United States from his first wife, Felicitas Amor, he contracted a second marriage with petitioner herein. Orlando died intestate in the Philippines. Petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for the issuance of letters of administration for her appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of Orlando. While said case was pending, respondent Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one of the children of Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar petition. Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of this second petition on the ground of litis pendentia. On the other hand, respondent alleged that petitioner was not considered an interested person qualified to file a petition for the issuance of letters of administration of the estate of Orlando since a criminal case for bigamy was filed against petitioner for marrying first one Eusebio Bristol. The RTC had acquitted petitioner of bigamy. The trial court ruled that since the deceased was a divorced American citizen, and since that divorce was not recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, the marriage between him and petitioner was not valid. The RTC of Burgos, Pangasinan dismissed the Petition for the issuance of letters of administration filed by petitioner and granted that of private respondent. Contrary to its findings in the criminal case, the RTC held that the marriage between petitioner and Eusebio Bristol was valid and subsisting when she married Orlando. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court failed to take note of the findings of fact on the nonexistence of the marriage between petitioner and Bristol. It appears that the trial court no longer required petitioner to prove the validity of Orlando’s divorce under the laws of the United States and the marriage between petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to remand the proceedings to the trial court for further reception of evidence since it is imperative for the trial court to first determine the validity of the divorce to ascertain the rightful party to be issued the letters of administration over the estate of Orlando B. Catalan.
FACTS:
Orlando B. Catalan was a naturalized American citizen. After allegedly obtaining a divorce in the United States from his first wife, Felicitas Amor, he contracted a second marriage with petitioner herein. On 18 November 2004, Orlando died intestate in the Philippines. Thereafter, on 25 February 2005, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Burgos, Pangasinan a Petition for the issuance of letters of administration for her appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of Orlando.
On 3 March 2005, while Spec. Proc. No. 228 was pending, respondent Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one of the children of Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar petition. Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of this second petition on the ground of litis pendentia. On the other hand, respondent alleged that petitioner was not considered an interested person qualified to file a petition for the issuance of letters of administration of the estate of Orlando. In support of her contention, respondent alleged that a criminal case for bigamy was filed against petitioner. Apparently, Felicitas Amor filed a Complaint for bigamy, alleging that petitioner contracted a second marriage to Orlando despite having been married to one Eusebio Bristol on 12 December 1959.
On 6 August 1998, the RTC had acquitted petitioner of bigamy. The trial court ruled that since the deceased was a divorced American citizen, and since that divorce was not recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, the marriage between him and petitioner was not valid. Furthermore, it took note of the action for declaration of nullity then pending action with the trial court in Dagupan City filed by Felicitas Amor against the deceased and petitioner. It considered the pending action to be a prejudicial question in determining the guilt of petitioner for the crime of bigamy. Finally, the trial court found that, in the first place, petitioner had never been married to Eusebio Bristol.
On 26 June 2006, Branch 70 of the RTC of Burgos, Pangasinan dismissed the Petition for the issuance of letters of administration filed by petitioner and granted that of private respondent. Contrary to its findings in Crim. Case No. 2699-A, the RTC held that the marriage between petitioner and Eusebio Bristol was valid and subsisting when she married Orlando. After the subsequent denial of her Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals which ruled against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner should be issued the letters of administration of the estate of Catalan – REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
At the outset, it seems that the RTC in the special proceedings failed to appreciate the finding of the RTC in Crim. Case No. 2699-A that petitioner was never married to Eusebio Bristol. Thus, the trial court concluded that, because petitioner was acquitted of bigamy, it follows that the first marriage with Bristol still existed and was valid. By failing to take note of the findings of fact on the nonexistence of the marriage between petitioner and Bristol, both the RTC and CA held that petitioner was not an interested party in the estate of Orlando. Second, it is imperative to note that at the time the bigamy case in Crim. Case No. 2699-A was dismissed, we had already ruled that under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign nationality.
Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign nationality. This doctrine was established as early as 1985 in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. Nonetheless, the fact of divorce must still first be proven as we have enunciated in Garcia v. Recio.
It appears that the trial court no longer required petitioner to prove the validity of Orlando’s divorce under the laws of the United States and the marriage between petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to remand the proceedings to the trial court for further reception of evidence to establish the fact of divorce. Should petitioner prove the validity of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, she has the preferential right to be issued the letters of administration over the estate. Otherwise, letters of administration may be issued to respondent, who is undisputedly the daughter or next of kin of the deceased, in accordance with Sec. 6 of Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court. Thus, it is imperative for the trial court to first determine the validity of the divorce to ascertain the rightful party to be issued the letters of administration over the estate of Orlando B. Catalan.