FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No.
124371. November 23, 2000]
PAULA T. LLORENTE, petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALICIA F. LLORENTE, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The Case
The case raises
a conflict of laws issue.
What is before
us is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals[1] modifying that of the Regional
Trial Court, Camarines Sur, Branch 35, Iriga City[2] declaring respondent Alicia F.
Llorente (herinafter referred to as “Alicia”), as co-owners of whatever
property she and the deceased Lorenzo N. Llorente (hereinafter referred to as
“Lorenzo”) may have acquired during the twenty-five (25) years that they lived
together as husband and wife.
The Facts
The deceased
Lorenzo N. Llorente was an enlisted serviceman of the United States Navy from
March 10, 1927 to September 30, 1957.[3]
On February 22,
1937, Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente (hereinafter referred to as
“Paula”) were married before a parish priest, Roman Catholic Church, in Nabua,
Camarines Sur.[4]
Before the
outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo departed for the United States and Paula
stayed in the conjugal home in barrio Antipolo, Nabua, Camarines Sur.[5]
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.[6]
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 and he visited the Philippines.[7] He discovered that his wife Paula
was pregnant and was “living in” and having an adulterous relationship with his
brother, Ceferino Llorente.[8]
On December 4,
1945, Paula gave birth to a boy registered in the Office of the Registrar of
Nabua as “Crisologo Llorente,” with the certificate stating that the child was
not legitimate and the line for the father’s name was left blank.[9]
Lorenzo refused
to forgive Paula and live with her. In
fact, on February 2, 1946, the couple drew a written agreement to the effect
that (1) all the family allowances allotted by the United States Navy as part
of Lorenzo’s salary and all other obligations for Paula’s daily maintenance and
support would be suspended; (2) they would dissolve their marital union in accordance
with judicial proceedings; (3) they would make a separate agreement regarding
their conjugal property acquired during their marital life; and (4) Lorenzo
would not prosecute Paula for her adulterous act since she voluntarily admitted
her fault and agreed to separate from Lorenzo peacefully. The agreement was signed by both Lorenzo and
Paula and was witnessed by Paula’s father and stepmother. The agreement was notarized by Notary Public
Pedro Osabel.[10]
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. On
November 27, 1951, the Superior Court of the State of California, for the
County of San Diego found all factual allegations to be true and issued an
interlocutory judgment of divorce.[11]
On December 4,
1952, the divorce decree became final.[12]
In the meantime,
Lorenzo returned to the Philippines.
On January 16,
1958, Lorenzo married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila.[13] 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.[14]
From 1958 to
1985, Lorenzo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife.[15] Their twenty-five (25) year union
produced three children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surnamed Llorente.[16]
On March 13,
1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament. The will was notarized by Notary Public Salvador M. Occiano, duly
signed by Lorenzo with attesting witnesses Francisco Hugo, Francisco Neibres
and Tito Trajano. In the will, Lorenzo
bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children, to wit:
“(1) I give and bequeath to my wife
ALICIA R. FORTUNO exclusively my residential house and lot, located at San
Francisco, Nabua, Camarines Sur, Philippines, including ALL the personal
properties and other movables or belongings that may be found or existing
therein;
“(2) I give and bequeath exclusively
to my wife Alicia R. Fortuno and to my children, Raul F. Llorente, Luz F.
Llorente and Beverly F. Llorente, in equal shares, all my real properties
whatsoever and wheresoever located, specifically my real properties located at
Barangay Aro-Aldao, Nabua, Camarines Sur; Barangay Paloyon, Nabua, Camarines
Sur; Barangay Baras, Sitio Puga, Nabua, Camarines Sur; and Barangay Paloyon,
Sitio Nalilidong, Nabua, Camarines Sur;
“(3) I likewise give and bequeath
exclusively unto my wife Alicia R. Fortuno and unto my children, Raul F.
Llorente, Luz F. Llorente and Beverly F. Llorente, in equal shares, my real
properties located in Quezon City Philippines, and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 188652; and my lands in Antipolo, Rizal, Philippines,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 124196 and 165188, both of the
Registry of Deeds of the province of Rizal, Philippines;
“(4) That their respective shares
in the above-mentioned properties, whether real or personal properties, shall
not be disposed of, ceded, sold and conveyed to any other persons, but could
only be sold, ceded, conveyed and disposed of by and among themselves;
“(5) I designate my wife ALICIA R.
FORTUNO to be the sole executor of this my Last Will and Testament, and in her
default or incapacity of the latter to act, any of my children in the order of
age, if of age;
“(6) I hereby direct that the
executor named herein or her lawful substitute should served (sic)
without bond;
“(7) I hereby revoke any and all my
other wills, codicils, or testamentary dispositions heretofore executed,
signed, or published, by me;
“(8) It is my final wish and desire
that if I die, no relatives of mine in any degree in the Llorente’s Side should
ever bother and disturb in any manner whatsoever my wife Alicia R. Fortunato
and my children with respect to any real or personal properties I gave and
bequeathed respectively to each one of them by virtue of this Last Will and
Testament.”[17]
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 wherein
Lorenzo moved that Alicia be appointed Special Administratrix of his estate.[18]
On January 18,
1984, the trial court denied the motion for the reason that the testator Lorenzo
was still alive.[19]
On January 24,
1984, finding that the will was duly executed, the trial court admitted the
will to probate.[20]
On June 11,
1985, before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died.[21]
On September 4,
1985, Paula filed with the same court a petition[22] for letters of administration over
Lorenzo’s estate in her favor. Paula
contended (1) that she was Lorenzo’s surviving spouse, (2) that the various
property were acquired during their marriage, (3) that Lorenzo’s will disposed
of all his property in favor of Alicia and her children, encroaching on her
legitime and 1/2 share in the conjugal property.[23]
On December 13,
1985, Alicia filed in the testate proceeding (Sp. Proc. No. IR-755), a petition
for the issuance of letters testamentary.[24]
On October 14,
1985, without terminating the testate proceedings, the trial court gave due
course to Paula’s petition in Sp. Proc. No. IR-888.[25]
On November 6,
13 and 20, 1985, the order was published in the newspaper “Bicol Star”.[26]
On May 18, 1987,
the Regional Trial Court issued a joint decision, thus:
“Wherefore, considering that this
court has so 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 her relationship with
Lorenzo having gained the status of paramour which is under Art. 739 (1).
“On the other hand, the court finds
the petition of Paula Titular Llorente, meritorious, and so declares the
intrinsic disposition of the will of Lorenzo Llorente dated March 13, 1981 as
void and declares her entitled as conjugal partner and entitled to one-half of
their conjugal properties, and as primary compulsory heir, Paula T. Llorente is
also entitled to one-third of the estate and then one-third should go to the
illegitimate children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surname (sic)
Llorente, for them to partition in equal shares and also entitled to the
remaining free portion in equal shares.
“Petitioner, Paula Llorente is
appointed legal administrator of the estate of the deceased, Lorenzo
Llorente. As such let the corresponding
letters of administration issue in her favor upon her filing a bond in the
amount (sic) of P100,000.00 conditioned for her to make a return to the
court within three (3) months a true and complete inventory of all goods,
chattels, rights, and credits, and estate which shall at any time come to her
possession or to the possession of any other person for her, and from the
proceeds to pay and discharge all debts, legacies and charges on the same, or
such dividends thereon as shall be decreed or required by this court; to render
a true and just account of her administration to the court within one (1) year,
and at any other time when required by the court and to perform all orders of
this court by her to be performed.
“On the other matters prayed for in
respective petitions for want of evidence could not be granted.
“SO ORDERED.”[27]
In time, Alicia
filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration of the aforequoted
decision.[28]
On September 14,
1987, the trial court denied Alicia’s motion for reconsideration but modified
its earlier decision, stating that Raul and Luz Llorente are not children
“legitimate or otherwise” of Lorenzo since they were not legally adopted by
him.[29] Amending its decision of May 18,
1987, the trial court declared Beverly Llorente as the only illegitimate child
of Lorenzo, entitling her to one-third (1/3) of the estate and one-third (1/3)
of the free portion of the estate.[30]
On September 28,
1987, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals.[31]
On July 31,
1995, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision, affirming with
modification the decision of the trial court in this wise:
“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed
from is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that Alicia is declared as
co-owner of whatever properties she and the deceased may have acquired during
the twenty-five (25) years of cohabitation.
“SO ORDERED.”[32]
On August 25,
1995, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration
of the decision.[33]
On March 21,
1996, the Court of Appeals,[34] denied the motion for lack of
merit.
Hence, this
petition.[35]
The Issue
Stripping the
petition of its legalese and sorting through the various arguments raised,[36] the issue is simple. Who are entitled to inherit from the late
Lorenzo N. Llorente?
We do not agree
with the decision of the Court of Appeals.
We remand the case to the trial court for ruling on the intrinsic
validity of the will of the deceased.
The Applicable Law
The fact that
the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen long before and at the
time of: (1) his divorce from Paula; (2) marriage to Alicia; (3) execution of
his will; and (4) death, is duly established, admitted and undisputed.
Thus, as a rule,
issues arising from these incidents are necessarily governed by foreign law.
The Civil Code
clearly provides:
“Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of
the Philippines, even though living abroad.
“Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law
of the country where it is situated.
“However, intestate and
testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the
amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of
the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.”
(emphasis ours)
True, foreign
laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them.
Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.[37]
While the substance
of the foreign law was pleaded, the Court of Appeals did not admit the foreign
law. The Court of Appeals and the trial
court called to the fore the renvoi doctrine, where the case was
“referred back” to the law of the decedent’s domicile, in this case, Philippine
law.
We note that
while the trial court stated that the law of New York was not sufficiently
proven, in the same breath it made the categorical, albeit equally unproven
statement that “American law follows the ‘domiciliary theory’ hence, Philippine
law applies when determining the validity of Lorenzo’s will.[38]
First, there is no such thing as one
American law. The "national
law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to
general American law. There is no such
law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United
States. Each State of the union has its
own law applicable to its citizens and in force only within the State. It can therefore refer to no other than the
law of the State of which the decedent was a resident.[39] Second, there is no
showing that the application of the renvoi doctrine is called for or
required by New York State law.
The trial court
held that the will was intrinsically invalid since it contained dispositions in
favor of Alice, who in the trial court’s opinion was a mere paramour. The trial court threw the will out, leaving
Alice, and her two children, Raul and Luz, with nothing.
The Court of
Appeals also disregarded the will. It
declared Alice entitled to one half (1/2) of whatever property she and Lorenzo
acquired during their cohabitation, applying Article 144 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.
The hasty
application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of the will, already
probated as duly executed in accordance with the formalities of Philippine law,
is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here
obtaining.
Validity of the Foreign Divorce
In Van Dorn
v. Romillo, Jr.[40] we held that owing to the
nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine
nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being
considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens
may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their
national law.
Citing this
landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals,[41] that once proven that respondent
was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner,
the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could
“very well lose her right to inherit” from him.
In Pilapil v.
Ibay-Somera,[42] we recognized the divorce obtained
by the respondent in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. There, we stated that divorce and its legal
effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned
in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons.
For failing to
apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.[43] 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.
Validity of the Will
The Civil Code
provides:
“Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts,
wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the
country in which they are executed.
“When the acts referred to are
executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the
Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine
laws shall be observed in their execution.” (underscoring ours)
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.”[44]
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. Whether the will was executed in accordance
with the formalities required is answered by referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly probated.
As a guide
however, the trial court should note that whatever public policy or good
customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress did not intend to
extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress specifically left the amount of
successional rights to the decedent's national law.[45]
Having thus
ruled, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised.
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G. R. SP No. 17446 promulgated on July 31, 1995 is SET ASIDE.
In lieu thereof,
the Court REVERSES the decision of the Regional Trial Court and RECOGNIZES 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 REMANDS the cases to the court of origin for determination of the
intrinsic validity of Lorenzo N. Llorente’s will and determination of the
parties’ successional rights allowing proof of foreign law with instructions
that the trial court shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch to settle the
estate of the deceased within the framework of the Rules of Court.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] In CA-G. R. SP. No.
17446, promulgated on July 31, 1995, Lipana-Reyes+, J., ponente,
Torres, Jr. and Hofilena, JJ., concurring.
[2] In Spec. Proc. No.
IR-755 (In the Matter of the Probate and Allowance of the Last Will and
Testament of Lorenzo N. Llorente, Lorenzo N. Llorente, Petitioner) and Spec.
Proc. No. IR-888 (Petition for the
Grant of Letters of Administration for the Estate of Lorenzo N. Llorente, Paula T. Llorente, Petitioner), dated May
18, 1987, Judge Esteban B. Abonal, presiding.
[3] Decision, Court of
Appeals, Rollo, p. 51.
[4] Exh. “B”, Trial Court
Folder of Exhibits, p. 61.
[5] Ibid.
[6] This was issued
pursuant to Lorenzo’s petition, Petition No. 4708849, filed with the U.S.
Court. Exhs. “H” and “H-3” Trial Court Folder of Exhibits, p. 157, 159.
[7] Decision, Court of
Appeals, Rollo, p. 51; Exh. “B”, Trial Court Folder of Exhibits, p. 61.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Exh. “A”, Trial Court
Folder of Exhibits, p. 60.
[10] Exh. “B-1” Trial
Court Folder of Exhibits, p. 62.
[11] Exh. “D”, Trial Court
Folder of Exhibits, pp. 63-64.
[12] Exh. “E”, Trial Court
Folder of Exhibits, p. 69.
[13] Exh. “F”, Trial Court
Folder of Exhibits, p. 148.
[14] Decision, Court of
Appeals, Rollo, p. 52.
[15] Comment, Rollo,
p. 147.
[16] Decision, Court of
Appeals, Rollo, p. 52.
[17] Exh. “A”, Trial Court
Folder of Exhibits, pp. 3-4; Decision, Court of Appeals, Rollo, p. 52.
[18] Docketed as Spec.
Proc. No. IR-755.
[19] Decision, RTC, Rollo,
p. 37.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Docketed as Spec.
Proc. No. IR-888.
[23] Decision, RTC, Rollo,
p. 38.
[24] Decision, Court of
Appeals, Rollo, p. 52.
[25] Ibid., pp. 52-53.
[26] Ibid., p. 53.
[27] RTC Decision, Rollo,
p. 37.
[28] Order, Regional Trial
Court in Spec. Proc. Nos. IR-755 and 888, Rollo, p. 46.
[29] Citing Article 335 of the Civil Code, which states, “The following
cannot adopt: xxx
(3) a married person, without
the consent of the other spouse; xxx”, the trial court reasoned that since the
divorce obtained by Lorenzo did not dissolve his first marriage with Paula, then the adoption of Raul and Luz was
void, as Paula did not give her consent to it.
[30] Order, Regional Trial
Court, Rollo, p. 47.
[31] Docketed as CA-G. R.
SP No. 17446.
[32] Decision, Court of
Appeals, Rollo, p. 56.
[33] On August 31, 1995,
petitioner also filed with this Court a verified complaint against the members
of the Special Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Associate Justices Justo
P. Torres, Jr., Celia Lipana-Reyes + and Hector Hofilena for “gross ignorance
of the law, manifest incompetence and extreme bias (Rollo, p.
15).”
[34] Again with Associate
Justice Celia Lipana-Reyes+, ponente, concurred in by
Associate Justices Justo P. Torres, Jr. and Hector Hofilena (Former Special
Thirteenth Division).
[35] Filed on May 10,
1996, Rollo, pp. 9-36.
[36] Petitioner alleges
(1) That the Court of Appeals lost its jurisdiction over the case when it
issued the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration; (2) That Art. 144
of the Civil Case has been repealed by Arts. 253 and 147 of the Family Code and
(3) That Alicia and her children not are entitled to any share in the estate of
the deceased (Rollo, p. 19).
[37] Collector of Internal
Revenue v. Fisher, 110 Phil. 686 (1961).
[38] Joint Record on
Appeal, p. 255; Rollo, p. 40.
[39] In Re: Estate of
Edward Christensen, Aznar v. Helen Garcia, 117 Phil. 96 (1963).
[40] 139 SCRA 139 (1985).
[41] 300 SCRA 406 (1998).
[42] 174 SCRA 653 (1989).
[43] The ruling in the
case of Tenchavez v. Escano (122
Phil. 752 [1965]) that provides that “a foreign divorce between Filipino
citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present civil code is
not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction” is NOT applicable in
the case at bar as Lorenzo was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained
the divorce.
[44] Article 15, Civil
Code provides “Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.” (Underscoring ours)
[45] Bellis v.
Bellis, 126 Phil. 726 (1967).