FE D.

QUITA vs COURT OF APPEALS and BLANDINA DANDAN, December 22, 1998, 300 SCRA
406

FACTS:

Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on May 18,
1941. No children were born out of their marriage. On July 23, 1954, petitioner obtained a final
judgment of divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. On April 16, 1972, Arturo died leaving
no will. On August 31, 1972, Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the RTC for issuance of
letters of administration concerning the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust
Company. Respondent Blandina Dandan, claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan
and the surviving children, all surnamed Padlan, opposed the petition. The RTC expressed that
the marriage between Antonio and petitioner subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972, that
the marriage existed between private respondent and Arturo was clearly void since it was
celebrated during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner. The Court of Appeals
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

ISSUE:

1. Should the case be remanded to the lower court?

2. Who between the petitioner and private respondent is the proper heir of the decedent?

RULING:

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.

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.

The decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the remand of the case is affirmed.