G.R. No. 124862, December 22, 1998
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. Fe sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A and thereafter, she obtained a final judgment of divorce. On 16 April 1972 Arturo died. He left no will. In the estate proceedings of the Arturo, it was only petitioner and Arturo’s brothers who were declared as intestate heirs. Respondent Blandina Dandan (also referred to as Blandina Padlan), claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan were not declared as heirs. The trial court disregarded the divorce between petitioner and Arturo. Consequently, it expressed the view that their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972. However, partial reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the exception of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and petitioner to the other half. Private respondent was not declared an heir because she and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 and their marriage was clearly void since it was celebrated during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner. The appellate court declared the orders and the decision of the trial court as null and void for lack of hearing, and ordered the remand of the case to the trial court. Petitioner contends the remand to the trial court, insisting that the case could already be resolved. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine petitioner’s citizenship at the time of the issuance of the foreign divorce decree in order to determine her hereditary rights as spouse. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo.
FACTS:
Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. Somewhere along the way their relationship soured. Eventually Fe sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A and thereafter, she obtained a final judgment of divorce in 1954. Three (3) weeks thereafter she married a certain Felix Tupaz in the same locality but their relationship also ended in a divorce. Still in the U.S.A., she married for the third time, to a certain Wernimont. On 16 April 1972 Arturo died. He left no will. On 31 August 1972 Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for issuance of letters of administration concerning the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Company. Respondent Blandina Dandan (also referred to as Blandina Padlan), claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named in the petition as surviving children of Arturo Padlan, opposed the petition and prayed for the appointment instead of Atty. Leonardo Cabasal, which was resolved in favor of the latter. On 7 October 1987 petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent and the distribution of his estate.
The trial court disregarded the divorce between petitioner and Arturo. Consequently, it expressed the view that their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972. Neither did it consider valid their extrajudicial settlement of conjugal properties due to lack of judicial approval. As regards Ruperto, it found that he was a brother of Arturo. Only petitioner and Ruperto were declared the intestate heirs of Arturo. Accordingly, equal adjudication of the net hereditary estate was ordered in favor of the two intestate heirs.
In their appeal to the Court of Appeals, Blandina and her children assigned as one of the errors allegedly committed by the trial court the circumstance that the case was decided without a hearing; in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 90, of the Rules of Court, which provides that if there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful 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. Respondent appellate court found this ground alone sufficient to sustain the appeal declaring null and void the orders of the trial court and directed the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Petitioner insists that there is no need to remand the case because, first, no legal or factual issue obtains for resolution either as to the heirship of the Padlan children or as to their respective shares in the intestate estate of the decedent; and, second, the issue as to who between petitioner and private respondent is the proper heir of the decedent is one of law which can be resolved in the present petition based on established facts and admissions of the parties.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner was still entitled to inherit from the decedent considering that she had secured a divorce in the U.S.A. – REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The finding on their citizenship pertain solely to the time of their marriage as the trial court was not supplied with a basis to determine petitioner’s citizenship at the time of their divorce. The doubt persisted as to whether she was still a Filipino citizen when their divorce was decreed. The trial court must have overlooked the materiality of this aspect. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo.
We emphasize however that 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 from the beginning under Arts. 80 and 83 of the Civil Code. Consequently, she is not a surviving spouse that can inherit from him as this status presupposes a legitimate relationship.