QUITA v.

CA (Fe Quita v Court of Appeals and Blandina Dandan)

GR 124862

Facts:
Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941. They were not
however blessed with children. Somewhere along the way their relationship soured. Eventually Fe sued Arturo for
divorce in San Francisco, USA. She submitted in the divorce proceedings a private writing dated July 19, 1950
evidencing their agreement to live separately from each other and a settlement of their conjugal properties. On
July 23, 1954, she obtained a final judgment of divorce. Three weeks thereafter, she married a certain Felix Tupaz
in the same locality of their relationship also ended in divorce. Still in the USA, she married for the third time to a
certain Wernimont.

On April 16, 1972, Arturo died. He left no will. On August 31, 1971, Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the RTC
of Quezon for the issuance of letters of administration concerning the estate of Arturo. Respondent Blandina
Dandan (or Blandina Padlan, alleged surviving spouse of Arturo) and her children submitted photocopies of the
July 19 private writing and the final judgment of divorce between Fe Quita and Arturo. Later, Ruperto Padlan,
claiming to be the sole surviving brother of the deceased Arturo, intervened. The trial court ruled that divorce of
Fe and Arturo should be disregarded citing Tenchavez v Escao which held that a foreign divorce between Filipino
citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code was not entitled to recognition as valid in
this jurisdiction.

Blandina contends that Quita had already secured a divorce in the USA and in fact, remarried twice. She is not
entitled to inherit from Arturo. While Fes contention is, Arturo was a Filipino and as such, remained legally
married to her inspite the divorce they obtained.

Issue: Whether the divorce decree obtained by Quita is recognized in the Philippines?

Ruling:
Reading between the lines, the implication is that Fe Quita was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her
divorce from Arturo. This should have prompted the trial court to conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship.
Instead, the lower court perfunctorily settled her claim in her favor by merely applying the ruling in Tenchavez v
Escao.

The Supreme Court deduce that the finding on their citizenship pertain solely at the time of their marriage. Once
proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, the ruling in Van Dorn v Romillo Jr.
would become applicable, making the divorce decree recognizable in the Philippines and Fe Quinto could very well
lose her right to inherit from Arturo. Van Dorn v Romillo held that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may
be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.

Therefore, the case has to be remanded for further proceedings to the court of origin.