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).