Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

8.

Quita vs CA

Facts:

Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines
on May 18, 1941. They got divorce in San Francisco on July 23, 1954. Both of them remarried another
person. Arturo remarried Bladina Dandan, the respondent herewith. They were blessed with six
children, all surnamed Padlan.

On April 16, 1972, when Arturo died, the trial court was set to declared as to who will be the
intestate heirs. The trial court invoking Tenchavez vs Escano case held that the divorce acquired by the
petitioner is not recognized in our country. Private respondent stressed that the citizenship of petitioner
was relevant in the light of the ruling in Van Dorn v. Rommillo Jr that aliens who obtain divorce abroad
are recognized in the Philippnes provided they are valid according to their national law. The petitioner
herself answered that she was an American citizen since 1954. Through the hearing she also stated that
Arturo was a Filipino at the time she obtained the divorce. Implying the she was no longer a Filipino
citizen.

The Trial court disregarded the respondent’s statement. The net hereditary estate was ordered
in favor the Fe D. Quita and Ruperto, the brother of Arturo. Blandina and the Padlan children moved for
reconsideration. On February 15, 1988 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 the other half to Fe Quita. Private respondent was not declared an heir for her marriage to
Arturo was declared void since it was celebrated during the existence of his previous marriage to
petitioner. Blandina and her children appeal to the Court of Appeals that the case was decided without
a hearing in violation of the Rules of Court.

Issues:

Whether or not Quita is the legitimate surving spouse of Arturo Padlan.

Held:

No dispute exists as to the right of the six Padlan children to inherit from the decedent
because there are proofs that they have been duly acknowledged by him and petitioner
herself even recognizes them as heirs of Arturo Padlan, nor as to their
respective hereditary shares.

Private respondent is not a surviving spouse that can inherit from him as this status
presupposes a legitimate relationship. Her marriage to Arturo being a
bigamous marriage considered void ab inito under Articles 80 and 83 of the Civil Code
renders her not a surviving spouse. They married in 1947 whuile the divorce decree was
obtained in 1954.

The doubt persisted as to whether Quita was still a Filipino citizen when their divorce was
decreed. The trial court must have overlooked the materiality of this aspect.

As to the right of the petitioner however, the court affirmed the ruling of the appellate court
in ordering the case returned to the trial court for further proceedings.
The ruling in Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr.[13]” that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law”,
would become applicable Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time
of their divorce. The petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen