G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On February 22, 1937, Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente were married before a parish priest, Roman Catholic Church, in Nabua, Camarines Sur. In 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States citizenship. He discovered that his wife Paula was pregnant and was “living in” and having an adulterous relationship with his brother, Ceferino Llorente. Lorenzo returned to the United States and on November 16, 1951 filed for divorce with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego. Paula was represented by counsel, John Riley, and actively participated in the proceedings. An interlocutory judgment of Divorce was issued which became final on December 4, 1952. Lorenzo returned to the Philippines and married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila in 1958. They lived together as husband and wife and their twenty-five (25) year union produced three children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surnamed Llorente.
Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament and he filed a petition for the probate and allowance of the same but before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died. Paula filed a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor. The trial court granted the letters of administration in favor of Paula as it found the divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente void and inapplicable in the Philippines. Moreover, the trial court declared the intrinsic disposition of the will of Lorenzo Llorente as void. The trial court also declared Paula entitled as conjugal partner thereby entitling her to one-half of their conjugal properties. As primary compulsory heir, she is also entitled to one-third of the estate. One-third of the estate then should go to the illegitimate children for them to partition in equal shares and both Paula and the children are also entitled to the remaining free portion in equal shares. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification that Alicia is declared as co-owner of whatever properties she and the deceased may have acquired during the twenty-five years of cohabitation.
Petitioner contends this decision of the appellate court. The Court reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and recognized as valid the decree of divorce granted in favor of the deceased Lorenzo N. Llorente by the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego, made final on December 4, 1952. Further, the Court remanded the case for determination of the intrinsic validity of Lorenzo N. Llorente’s will and determination of the parties’ successional rights allowing proof of foreign law.
FACTS:
On February 22, 1937, Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente were married before a parish priest, Roman Catholic Church, in Nabua, Camarines Sur. On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization No. 5579816 was issued in his favor by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Upon the liberation of the Philippines by the American Forces in 1945, Lorenzo was granted an accrued leave by the U.S. Navy, to visit his wife. Upon visiting the Philippines, he discovered that his wife Paula was pregnant and was “living in” and having an adulterous relationship with his brother, Ceferino Llorente. Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her. Lorenzo returned to the United States and on November 16, 1951 filed for divorce with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego. Paula was represented by counsel, John Riley, and actively participated in the proceedings. An interlocutory judgment of Divorce was issued which became final on December 4, 1952. Lorenzo returned to the Philippines and married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila in 1958. Apparently, 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. From 1958 to 1985, Lorenzo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife and their twenty-five (25) year union produced three children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surnamed Llorente.
On March 13, 1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament and on December 14, 1983, Lorenzo filed with the Regional Trial Court, Iriga, Camarines Sur, a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testament but on June 11, 1985, before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died. On September 4, 1985, Paula filed with the same court a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor. The trial court found that the divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage he contracted with Alicia Fortunato on January 16, 1958 at Manila is likewise void. This being so the petition of Alicia F. Llorente for the issuance of letters testamentary is denied. Likewise, she is not entitled to receive any share from the estate even if the will especially said so as her relationship with Lorenzo having gained the status of paramour. On the other hand, the trial court declared the intrinsic disposition of the will of Lorenzo Llorente dated March 13, 1981 as void and declared Paula entitled as conjugal partner and entitled to one-half of their conjugal properties, and as primary compulsory heir, she is also entitled to one-third of the estate. One-third should go to the illegitimate children for them to partition in equal shares and the children and Paula are also entitled to the remaining free portion in equal shares.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision, affirming the decision of the trial court with the modification that Alicia is declared as co-owner of whatever properties she and the deceased may have acquired during the twenty-five years of cohabitation. Petitioner contends this decision of the appellate court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the letters of administration should be granted to the second wife in light of the dissolution of the first marriage by a divorce decree issued in California – REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
For failing to apply the doctrines in Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Quita vs. Court of Appeals, and Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed. We hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the succession to the estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the determination of the trial court.
The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife and children by her is glaringly shown in the will he executed. We do not wish to frustrate his wishes, since he was a foreigner, not covered by our laws on “family rights 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.