cases to synthesize

8/18/2019 Cases to Synthesize

1/40

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985

ALCE RE!ES "AN #ORN, petitioner,

vs.

$ON. MANUEL ". ROMLLO, %R., &' Pre'()(*+ %)+e o r&*c/ C, Re+(o*& Tr(& Cort o t/e

N&t(o*& C&2(t& Re+(o* P&'&3 C(t3 &*) RC$AR# UPTON respondents.

MELENCO-$ERRERA, J.:\

In this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner lice Re!es Van Dorn see"s to set aside the

Orders, dated Septe#ber $%, $&'( and u)ust (, $&'*, in +ivil +ase No. $-%P, issued b! respondent

/ud)e, 0hich denied her Motion to Dis#iss said case, and her Motion for Reconsideration of the

Dis#issal Order, respectivel!.

The basic bac")round facts are that petitioner is a citi1en of the Philippines 0hile private respondent is a

citi1en of the 2nited States3 that the! 0ere #arried in 4on)"on) in $&-53 that, after the #arria)e, the!

established their residence in the Philippines3 that the! be)ot t0o children born on pril *, $&-( and

Dece#ber $', $&-%, respectivel!3 that the parties 0ere divorced in Nevada, 2nited States, in $&'53 and

that petitioner has re#arried also in Nevada, this ti#e to Theodore Van Dorn.

Dated /une ', $&'(, private respondent filed suit a)ainst petitioner in +ivil +ase No. $-%P of theRe)ional Trial +ourt, 6ranch +7V, in Pasa! +it!, statin) that petitioner8s business in 9r#ita, Manila, :the

;alleon Shop, for shortno co##unit! propert!> as of /une $$, $&'5. The +ourt belo0

denied the Motion to Dis#iss in the #entioned case on the )round that the propert! involved is located in

the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearin) in the case. The denial is no0 the sub=ect of

this certiorari proceedin).

;enerall!, the denial of a Motion to Dis#iss in a civil case is interlocutor! and is not sub=ect to appeal.

certiorari and Prohibition are neither the re#edies to ?uestion the propriet! of an interlocutor! order of the

trial +ourt. 4o0ever, 0hen a )rave abuse of discretion 0as patentl! co##itted, or the lo0er +ourt acted

capriciousl! and 0hi#sicall!, then it devolves upon this +ourt in a certiorari proceedin) to e@ercise its

supervisor! authorit! and to correct the error co##itted 0hich, in such a case, is e?uivalent to lac" of

=urisdiction. 1 Prohibition 0ould then lie since it 0ould be useless and a 0aste of ti#e to )o ahead 0ith the

proceedin)s. Aeconsider the petition filed in this case 0ithin the e@ception, and 0e have )iven it due

course.


2/40

For resolution is the effect of the forei)n divorce on the parties and their alle)ed con=u)al propert! in the

Philippines.

Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped fro# la!in) clai# on the alle)ed con=u)al propert!

because of the representation he #ade in the divorce proceedin)s before the #erican +ourt that the!

had no co##unit! of propert!3 that the ;alleon Shop 0as not established throu)h con=u)al funds, and

that respondent8s clai# is barred b! prior =ud)#ent.

For his part, respondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued b! the Nevada +ourt cannot prevail over

the prohibitive la0s of the Philippines and its declared national polic!3 that the acts and declaration of a

forei)n +ourt cannot, especiall! if the sa#e is contrar! to public polic!, divest Philippine +ourts of

=urisdiction to entertain #atters 0ithin its =urisdiction.

For the resolution of this case, it is not necessar! to deter#ine 0hether the propert! relations bet0een

petitioner and private respondent, after their #arria)e, 0ere upon absolute or relative co##unit! propert!,

upon co#plete separation of propert!, or upon an! other re)i#e. The pivotal fact in this case is the

Nevada divorce of the parties.

The Nevada District +ourt, 0hich decreed the divorce, had obtained =urisdiction over petitioner 0ho

appeared in person before the +ourt durin) the trial of the case. It also obtained =urisdiction over private

respondent 0ho, )ivin) his address as No. ('$ 6ush Street, San Francisco, +alifornia, authori1ed his

attorne!s in the divorce case, Barp C ;radt td., to a)ree to the divorce on the )round of inco#patibilit! in

the understandin) that there 0ere neither co##unit! propert! nor co##unit! obli)ations. s e@plicitl!

stated in the Po0er of ttorne! he e@ecuted in favor of the la0 fir# of BRP C ;RD TD., ((E A.

ibert!, Reno, Nevada, to represent hi# in the divorce proceedin)s

@@@ @@@ @@@

Gou are hereb! authori1ed to accept service of Su##ons, to file an ns0er, appear on #!behalf and do an thin)s necessar! and proper to represent #e, 0ithout further contestin),

sub=ect to the follo0in)

$. That #! spouse see"s a divorce on the )round of inco#patibilit!.

5. That there is no co##unit! of propert! to be ad=udicated b! the +ourt.

(. 8I8hat there are no co##unit! obli)ations to be ad=udicated b! the court.

@@@ @@@ @@@

4

There can be no ?uestion as to the validit! of that Nevada divorce in an! of the States of the 2nited

States. The decree is bindin) on private respondent as an #erican citi1en. For instance, private

respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband , in an! State of the 2nion. Ahat he is contendin) in this

case is that the divorce is not valid and bindin) in this =urisdiction, the sa#e bein) contrar! to local la0

and public polic!.

It is true that o0in) to the nationalit! principle e#bodied in rticle $% of the +ivil +ode, 5 onl! Philippine

nationals are covered b! the polic! a)ainst absolute divorces the sa#e bein) considered contrar! to our


3/40

concept of public police and #oralit!. 4o0ever, aliens #a! obtain divorces abroad, 0hich #a! be

reco)ni1ed in the Philippines, provided the! are valid accordin) to their national la0. 6 In this case, the

divorce in Nevada released private respondent fro# the #arria)e fro# the standards of #erican la0,

under 0hich divorce dissolves the marriage. s stated b! the Federal Supreme Court of the United States

in Atherton vs. Atherton, *% . 9d. -&*, -&&

The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce fro# the bond of #atri#on! b! a court of

co#petent =urisdiction are to chan)e the e@istin) status or do#estic relation of husband and0ife, and to free the# both fro# the bond. The #arria)e tie 0hen thus severed as to one

part!, ceases to bind either. husband 0ithout a 0ife, or a 0ife 0ithout a husband, is

un"no0n to the la0. Ahen the la0 provides, in the nature of a penalt!. that the )uilt! part!

shall not #arr! a)ain, that part!, as 0ell as the other, is still absolutel! freed fro# the bond

of the for#er #arria)e.

Thus, pursuant to his national la0, private respondent is no lon)er the husband of petitioner. 4e 0ould

have no standin) to sue in the case belo0 as petitioner8s husband entitled to e@ercise control over

con=u)al assets. s he is bound b! the Decision of his o0n countr!8s +ourt, 0hich validl! e@ercised

=urisdiction over hi#, and 0hose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped b! his o0n representation

before said +ourt fro# assertin) his ri)ht over the alle)ed con=u)al propert!.

To #aintain, as private respondent does, that, under our la0s, petitioner has to be considered still #arried

to private respondent and still sub=ect to a 0ife8s obli)ations under rticle $&, et. seq. of the +ivil +ode

cannot be =ust. Petitioner should not be obli)ed to live to)ether 0ith, observe respect and fidelit!, and

render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs 0ith possible

ri)hts to con=u)al propert!. She should not be discri#inated a)ainst in her o0n countr! if the ends of

=ustice are to be served.

A49R9FOR9, the Petition is )ranted, and respondent /ud)e is hereb! ordered to dis#iss the +o#plaint

filed in +ivil +ase No. $-%P of his +ourt.

Aithout costs.

SO ORD9R9D.

Teehankee (Chairman) !lana "elova #utierre$ %r. &e la Fuente and !ata'o %%. concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

S9+OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 80116 %*e 0, 1989

MEL#A MANALA!SA! PLAPL, petitioner,

vs.


4/40

$ON. CORONA A!-SOMERA, (* /er c&2&c(t3 &' Pre'()(*+ %)+e o t/e Re+(o*& Tr(& Cort o

M&*(&, r&*c/ " $ON. LUS C. "CTOR, (* /(' c&2&c(t3 &' t/e C(t3 ('c& o M&*(& &*) ERC$

EE$AR# GELNG, respondents.

REGALA#O, J.:

n illstarred #arria)e of a Filipina and a forei)ner 0hich ended in a forei)n absolute divorce, onl! to be

follo0ed b! a cri#inal infidelit! suit of the latter a)ainst the for#er, provides 2s the opportunit! to la! do0n

a decisional rule on 0hat hitherto appears to be an unresolved =urisdictional ?uestion.

On Septe#ber -, $&-&, petitioner I#elda Manala!sa! Pilapil, a Filipino citi1en, and private respondent

9rich 9""ehard ;eilin), a ;er#an national, 0ere #arried before the Re)istrar of 6irths, Marria)es and

Deaths at Friedens0eiler in the Federal Republic of ;er#an!. The #arria)e started auspiciousl! enou)h,

and the couple lived to)ether for so#e ti#e in Malate, Manila 0here their onl! child, Isabella Pilapil

;eilin), 0as born on pril 5, $&'. 1

Thereafter, #arital discord set in, 0ith #utual recri#inations bet0een the spouses, follo0ed b! a

separation de facto bet0een the#.

fter about three and a half !ears of #arria)e, such connubial dishar#on! eventuated in private

respondent initiatin) a divorce proceedin) a)ainst petitioner in ;er#an! before the Schoneber) ocal

+ourt in /anuar!, $&'(. 4e clai#ed that there 0as failure of their #arria)e and that the! had been livin)

apart since pril, $&'5.

Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action for le)al separation, support and separation of propert!

before the Re)ional Trial +ourt of Manila, 6ranch 777II, on /anuar! 5(, $&'( 0here the sa#e is still

pendin) as +ivil +ase No. '($%'EE.

On /anuar! $%, $&'E, Division 5 of the Schoneber) ocal +ourt, Federal Republic of ;er#an!,

pro#ul)ated a decree of divorce on the )round of failure of #arria)e of the spouses. The custod! of the

child 0as )ranted to petitioner. The records sho0 that under ;er#an la0 said court 0as locall! and

internationall! co#petent for the divorce proceedin) and that the dissolution of said #arria)e 0as le)all!

founded on and authori1ed b! the applicable la0 of that forei)n =urisdiction. 4

On /une 5-, $&'E, or #ore than five #onths after the issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent

filed t0o co#plaints for adulter! before the +it! Fiscal of Manila alle)in) that, 0hile still #arried to said

respondent, petitioner >had an affair 0ith a certain Aillia# +hia as earl! as $&'5 and 0ith !et another #anna#ed /esus +hua so#eti#e in $&'(>. ssistant Fiscal /acinto . de los Re!es, /r., after the

correspondin) investi)ation, reco##ended the dis#issal of the cases on the )round of insufficienc! of

evidence. 5 4o0ever, upon revie0, the respondent cit! fiscal approved a resolution, dated /anuar! ',

$&'E, directin) the filin) of t0o co#plaints for adulter! a)ainst the petitioner. 6 The co#plaints 0ere

accordin)l! filed and 0ere eventuall! raffled to t0o branches of the Re)ional Trial +ourt of Manila. The

case entitled !eople of the !hilippines vs. melda !ilapil and *illiam Chia doc"eted as +ri#inal +ase

No. '-%5*(%, 0as assi)ned to 6ranch 77VI presided b! the respondent =ud)e3 0hile the other

case, !eople of the !hilippines vs. melda !ilapil and %ames Chua , doc"eted as +ri#inal +ase No. '-

%5*(* 0ent to the sala of /ud)e eonardo +ru1, 6ranch 77V, of the sa#e court. 7


5/40

On March $*, $&'-, petitioner filed a petition 0ith the Secretar! of /ustice as"in) that the aforesaid

resolution of respondent fiscal be set aside and the cases a)ainst her be dis#issed. 8 si#ilar petition

0as filed b! /a#es +hua, her coaccused in +ri#inal +ase No. '-%5*(*. The Secretar! of /ustice,

throu)h the +hief State Prosecutor, )ave due course to both petitions and directed the respondent cit!

fiscal to infor# the Depart#ent of /ustice >if the accused have alread! been arrai)ned and if not !et

arrai)ned, to #ove to defer further proceedin)s> and to elevate the entire records of both cases to his

office for revie0. 9

Petitioner thereafter filed a #otion in both cri#inal cases to defer her arrai)n#ent and to suspend further

proceedin)s thereon. 10 s a conse?uence, /ud)e eonardo +ru1 suspended proceedin)s in +ri#inal

+ase No. '-%5*(*. On the other hand, respondent =ud)e #erel! reset the date of the arrai)n#ent in

+ri#inal +ase No. '-%5*(% to pril E, $&'-. 6efore such scheduled date, petitioner #oved for the

cancellation of the arrai)n#ent and for the suspension of proceedin)s in said +ri#inal +ase No. '-%5*(%

until after the resolution of the petition for revie0 then pendin) before the Secretar! of /ustice. 11 #otion

to ?uash 0as also filed in the sa#e case on the )round of lac" of =urisdiction, 1 0hich #otion 0as denied

b! the respondent =ud)e in an order dated Septe#ber ', $&'-. The sa#e order also directed the

arrai)n#ent of both accused therein, that is, petitioner and Aillia# +hia. The latter entered a plea of not

)uilt! 0hile the petitioner refused to be arrai)ned. Such refusal of the petitioner bein) considered b!

respondent =ud)e as direct conte#pt, she and her counsel 0ere fined and the for#er 0as ordered

detained until she sub#itted herself for arrai)n#ent. 1 ater, private respondent entered a plea of not

)uilt!. 14

On October 5-, $&'-, petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, 0ith a pra!er for

a te#porar! restrainin) order, see"in) the annul#ent of the order of the lo0er court den!in) her #otion to

?uash. The petition is anchored on the #ain )round that the court is 0ithout =urisdiction >to tr! and decide

the char)e of adulter!, 0hich is a private offense that cannot be prosecuted de officio :sic 15

On October 5$, $&'-, this +ourt issued a te#porar! restrainin) order en=oinin) the respondents fro#

i#ple#entin) the aforesaid order of Septe#ber ', $&'- and fro# further proceedin) 0ith +ri#inal +ase

No. '-%5*(%. Subse?uentl!, on March 5(, $&'' Secretar! of /ustice Sedfre! . OrdoHe1 acted on the

aforesaid petitions for revie0 and, upholdin) petitioner8s ratiocinations, issued a resolution directin) the

respondent cit! fiscal to #ove for the dis#issal of the co#plaints a)ainst the petitioner. 16

Ae find this petition #eritorious. The 0rits pra!ed for shall accordin)l! issue.

2nder rticle (** of the Revised Penal +ode, 17 the cri#e of adulter!, as 0ell as four other cri#es a)ainst

chastit!, cannot be prosecuted e@cept upon a s0orn 0ritten co#plaint filed b! the offended spouse. It haslon) since been established, 0ith un0averin) consistenc!, that co#pliance 0ith this rule is a =urisdictional,

and not #erel! a for#al, re?uire#ent. 18 Ahile in point of strict la0 the =urisdiction of the court over the

offense is vested in it b! the /udiciar! a0, the re?uire#ent for a s0orn 0ritten co#plaint is =ust as

=urisdictional a #andate since it is that co#plaint 0hich starts the prosecutor! proceedin) 19 and 0ithout

0hich the court cannot e@ercise its =urisdiction to tr! the case.

No0, the la0 specificall! provides that in prosecutions for adulter! and concubina)e the person 0ho can

le)all! file the co#plaint should be the offended spouse, and nobod! else. 2nli"e the offenses of

seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, no provision is #ade for the prosecution of the


6/40

cri#es of adulter! and concubina)e b! the parents, )randparents or )uardian of the offended part!. The

socalled e@clusive and successive rule in the prosecution of the first four offenses above #entioned do

not appl! to adulter! and concubina)e. It is si)nificant that 0hile the State, as parens patriae, 0as added

and vested b! the $&'% Rules of +ri#inal Procedure 0ith the po0er to initiate the cri#inal action for a

deceased or incapacitated victi# in the aforesaid offenses of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of

lasciviousness, in default of her parents, )randparents or )uardian, such a#end#ent did not include the

cri#es of adulter! and concubina)e. In other 0ords, onl! the offended spouse, and no other, is authori1ed

b! la0 to initiate the action therefor.

+orollar! to such e@clusive )rant of po0er to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessaril!

follo0s that such initiator #ust have the status, capacit! or le)al representation to do so at the ti#e of the

filin) of the cri#inal action. This is a fa#iliar and e@press rule in civil actions3 in fact, lac" of le)al capacit!

to sue, as a )round for a #otion to dis#iss in civil cases, is deter#ined as of the filin) of the co#plaint or

petition.

The absence of an e?uivalent e@plicit rule in the prosecution of cri#inal cases does not #ean that the

sa#e re?uire#ent and rationale 0ould not appl!. 2nderstandabl!, it #a! not have been found necessar!

since cri#inal actions are )enerall! and funda#entall! co##enced b! the State, throu)h the People of

the Philippines, the offended part! bein) #erel! the co#plainin) 0itness therein. 4o0ever, in the so

called >private cri#es> or those 0hich cannot be prosecuted de oficio, and the present prosecution for

adulter! is of such )enre, the offended spouse assu#es a #ore predo#inant role since the ri)ht to

co##ence the action, or to refrain therefro#, is a #atter e@clusivel! 0ithin his po0er and option.

This polic! 0as adopted out of consideration for the a))rieved part! 0ho #i)ht prefer to suffer the outra)e

in silence rather than )o throu)h the scandal of a public trial. 0 4ence, as co)entl! ar)ued b! petitioner,

rticle (** of the Revised Penal +ode thus presupposes that the #arital relationship is still subsistin) at

the ti#e of the institution of the cri#inal action for, adulter!. This is a lo)ical conse?uence since the raison

d+etre of said provision of la0 0ould be absent 0here the supposed offended part! had ceased to be the

spouse of the alle)ed offender at the ti#e of the filin) of the cri#inal case. 1

In these cases, therefore, it is indispensable that the status and capacit! of the co#plainant to co##ence

the action be definitel! established and, as alread! de#onstrated, such status or capacit! #ust

indubitabl! e@ist as of the ti#e he initiates the action. It 0ould be absurd if his capacit! to brin) the action

0ould be deter#ined b! his status before or subsequent to the co##ence#ent thereof, 0here such

capacit! or status e@isted prior to but ceased before, or 0as ac?uired subse?uent to but did not e@ist at

the ti#e of, the institution of the case. Ae 0ould thereb! have the ano#alous spectacle of a part! brin)in)

suit at the ver! ti#e 0hen he is 0ithout the le)al capacit! to do so.

To repeat, there does not appear to be an! local precedential =urisprudence on the specific issue as to0hen precisel! the status of a co#plainant as an offended spouse #ust e@ist 0here a cri#inal

prosecution can be co##enced onl! b! one 0ho in la0 can be cate)ori1ed as possessed of such status.

Stated differentl! and 0ith reference to the present case, the in?uir! 30ould be 0hether it is necessar! in

the co##ence#ent of a cri#inal action for adulter! that the #arital bonds bet0een the co#plainant and

the accused be unsevered and e@istin) at the ti#e of the institution of the action b! the for#er a)ainst the

latter.

#erican =urisprudence, on cases involvin) statutes in that =urisdiction 0hich are in pari materia 0ith ours,

!ields the rule that after a divorce has been decreed the innocent spouse no longer has the right to


7/40

institute proceedings against the offenders 0here the statute provides that the innocent spouse shall have

the e@clusive ri)ht to institute a prosecution for adulter!. Ahere, ho0ever, proceedin)s have been properl!

co##enced, a divorce subse?uentl! )ranted can have no le)al effect on the prosecution of the cri#inal

proceedin)s to a conclusion.

In the cited ,oftus case, the Supre#e +ourt of Io0a held that

8No prosecution for adulter! can be co##enced e@cept on the co#plaint of the husband or0ife.8 Section *&(5, +ode. Though ,oftus -as husband of defendant -hen the offense is

said to have been committed he had ceased to be such -hen the prosecution -as begun3

and appellant insists that his status 0as not such as to entitle hi# to #a"e the co#plaint.

Ae have repeatedl! said that the offense is a)ainst the unoffendin) spouse, as 0ell as the

state, in e@plainin) the reason for this provision in the statute3 and 0e are of the opinion

that the unoffending spouse must be such -hen the prosecution is commenced . :9#phasis

supplied.<

Ae see no reason 0h! the sa#e doctrinal rule should not appl! in this case and in our =urisdiction,

considerin) our statutor! la0 and =ural polic! on the #atter. Ae are convinced that in cases of such

nature, the status of the co#plainant visavis the accused #ust be deter#ined as of the ti#e the

co#plaint 0as filed. Thus, the person 0ho initiates the adulter! case #ust be an offended spouse, and b!

this is #eant that he is still #arried to the accused spouse, at the ti#e of the filin) of the co#plaint.

In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his countr!, the Federal

Republic of ;er#an!, is ad#itted. Said divorce and its le)al effects #a! be reco)ni1ed in the Philippines

insofar as private respondent is concerned in vie0 of the nationalit! principle in our civil la0 on the

#atter of status of persons.

Thus, in the recent case of an &orn vs. "omillo %r. et al. 4 after a divorce 0as )ranted b! a 2nited

States court bet0een lice Van Dorn=a Filipina, and her #erican husband, the latter filed a civil case in a

trial court here alle)in) that her business concern 0as con=u)al propert! and pra!in) that she be ordered

to render an accountin) and that the plaintiff be )ranted the ri)ht to #ana)e the business. Re=ectin) his

pretensions, this +ourt perspicuousl! de#onstrated the error of such stance, thus

There can be no ?uestion as to the validit! of that Nevada divorce in an! of the States of the

2nited States. The decree is bindin) on private respondent as an #erican citi1en. For

instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in an! State of the

2nion. ...

It is true that o0in) to the nationalit! principle e#bodied in rticle $% of the +ivil +ode, onl!Philippine nationals are covered b! the polic! a)ainst absolute divorces the sa#e bein)

considered contrar! to our concept of public polic! and #oralit!. 4o0ever, aliens #a! obtain

divorces abroad, 0hich #a! be reco)ni1ed in the Philippines, provided the! are valid

accordin) to their national la0. ...

Thus, pursuant to his national la0, private respondent is no lon)er the husband of petitioner. 4e 0ould

have no standin) to sue in the case belo0 as petitioner8s husband entitled to e@ercise control over

con=u)al assets. ...5


8/40

2nder the sa#e considerations and rationale, private respondent, bein) no lon)er the husband of

petitioner, had no le)al standin) to co##ence the adulter! case under the i#posture that he 0as the

offended spouse at the ti#e he filed suit.

The alle)ation of private respondent that he could not have brou)ht this case before the decree of divorce

for lac" of "no0led)e, even if true, is of no le)al si)nificance or conse?uence in this case. Ahen said

respondent initiated the divorce proceedin), he obviousl! "ne0 that there 0ould no lon)er be a fa#il! nor

#arria)e vo0s to protect once a dissolution of the #arria)e is decreed. Neither 0ould there be a dan)erof introducin) spurious heirs into the fa#il!, 0hich is said to be one of the reasons for the particular

for#ulation of our la0 on adulter!, 6 since there 0ould thenceforth be no spousal relationship to spea" of.

The severance of the #arital bond had the effect of dissociatin) the for#er spouses fro# each other,

hence the actuations of one 0ould not affect or cast oblo?u! on the other.

The aforecited case of United States vs. /ata cannot be successfull! relied upon b! private respondent.

In appl!in) rticle *(( of the old Penal +ode, substantiall! the sa#e as rticle ((( of the Revised Penal

+ode, 0hich punished adulter! >althou)h the #arria)e be after0ards declared void>, the +ourt #erel!

stated that >the la0#a"ers intended to declare adulterous the infidelit! of a #arried 0o#an to her #arital

vo0s, even thou)h it should be #ade to appear that she is entitled to have her #arria)e contract declared

null and void, until and unless she actuall! secures a for#al =udicial declaration to that effect>. Definitel!, it

cannot be lo)icall! inferred therefro# that the co#plaint can still be filed after the declaration of nullit!

because such declaration that the #arria)e is void ab initio is e?uivalent to statin) that it never e@isted.

There bein) no #arria)e fro# the be)innin), an! co#plaint for adulter! filed after said declaration of

nullit! 0ould no lon)er have a le) to stand on. Moreover, 0hat 0as conse?uentl! conte#plated and 0ithin

the purvie0 of the decision in said case is the situation 0here the cri#inal action for adulter! 0as

filed before the ter#ination of the #arria)e b! a =udicial declaration of its nullit! ab initio. The sa#e rule

and re?uisite 0ould necessaril! appl! 0here the ter#ination of the #arria)e 0as effected, as in this case,

b! a valid forei)n divorce.

Private respondent8s invocation of &onio0Teves et al. vs. amenta hereinbefore cited, 7 #ust suffer the

sa#e fate of inapplicabilit!. cursor! readin) of said case reveals that the offended spouse therein had

dul! and seasonabl! filed a co#plaint for adulter!, althou)h an issue 0as raised as to its sufficienc! but

0hich 0as resolved in favor of the co#plainant. Said case did not involve a factual situation a"in to the

one at bar or an! issue deter#inative of the controvers! herein.

A49R9FOR9, the ?uestioned order den!in) petitioner8s #otion to ?uash is S1T AS&1 and another one

entered&S/SS2# the co#plaint in +ri#inal +ase No. '-%5*(% for lac" of =urisdiction. The te#porar!

restrainin) order issued in this case on October 5$, $&'- is hereb! #ade per#anent.

SO ORD9R9D.

/elencio03errera !adilla and Sarmiento %%. concur .

Se2&r&te O2(*(o*'


9/40

PARAS, J., concurrin)

It is #! considered opinion that re)ardless of 0hether Ae consider the ;er#an absolute divorce as valid

also in the Philippines, the fact is that the husband in the instant case, b! the ver! act of his obtainin) an

absolute divorce in ;er#an! can no lon)er be considered as the offended part! in case his for#er 0ife

actuall! has carnal "no0led)e 0ith another, because in divorcin) her, he alread! i#plicitl! authori1ed the0o#an to have se@ual relations 0ith others. contrar! rulin) 0ould be less than fair for a #an, 0ho is free

to have se@ 0ill be allo0ed to deprive the 0o#an of the sa#e privile)e.

In the case of "ecto v. 3arden :$ Phil. *5- J$&%EK


10/40

In the case of "ecto v. 3arden :$ Phil. *5- J$&%EK


11/40

April 1!7/ the oppositors 0;landina and the Padlan $hildren submitted $erti'ied photo$opies o' the 1! )ul

1!*+ pri#ate writin& and the 'inal ud&ment o' di#or$e between petitioner and Arturo. 9ater :uperto T. Padlan

$laimin& to be the sole sur#i#in& brother o' the de$eased Arturo, inter#ened.

-n 7 -$tober 1!87 petitioner mo#ed 'or the immediate de$laration o' heirs o' the de$edent and the

distribution o' his estate. At the s$heduled hearin& on / -$tober 1!87, pri#ate respondent as well as the si3 06

Padlan $hildren and :uperto 'ailed to appear despite due noti$e. -n the same da, the trial $ourt re>uired the

submission o' the re$ords o' birth o' the Padlan $hildren within ten 01+ das 'rom re$eipt thereo', a'ter whi$h,with or without the do$uments, the issue on the de$laration o' heirs would be $onsidered submitted 'or

resolution. The pres$ribed period lapsed without the re>uired do$uments bein& submitted.

The trial $ourt in#o2in& Tenchavez v. Escaño?1@ whi$h held that a 'orei&n di#or$e between Filipino $iti4ens

sou&ht and de$reed a'ter the e''e$ti#it o' the present (i#il (ode 0:ep. A$t /86 was not entitled to

re$o&nition as #alid in this urisdi$tion,?@disre&arded the di#or$e between petitioner and Arturo. (onse>uentl

it e3pressed the #iew that their marria&e subsisted until the death o' Arturo in 1!7. Beither did it $onsider

#alid their e3traudi$ial settlement o' $onu&al properties due to la$2 o' udi$ial appro#al. ?/@ -n the other hand, it

opined that there was no showin& that marria&e e3isted between pri#ate respondent and Arturo, mu$h less was it

shown that the alle&ed Padlan $hildren had been a$2nowled&ed b the de$eased as his $hildren with her. As

re&ards :uperto, it 'ound that he was a brother o' Arturo. -n 7 Bo#ember 1!87?"@ onl petitioner and :uperto

were de$lared the intestate heirs o' Arturo. A$$ordin&l, e>ual adudi$ation o' the net hereditar estate was

ordered in 'a#or o' the two intestate heirs.?*@

-n motion 'or re$onsideration, ;landina and the Padlan $hildren were allowed to present proo's that the

re$o&nition o' the $hildren b the de$eased as his le&itimate $hildren, e3$ept Ale3is who was re$o&ni4ed as his

ille&itimate $hild, had been made in their respe$ti#e re$ords o' birth. Thus on 1* Februar 1!88 ?6@ partia

re$onsideration was &ranted de$larin& the Padlan $hildren, with the e3$eption o' Ale3is, entitled to oneChal' o'

the estate to the e3$lusion o' :uperto Padlan, and petitioner to the other hal'. ?7@Pri#ate respondent was not

de$lared an heir. Althou&h it was stated in the a'orementioned re$ords o' birth that she and Arturo were married

on April 1!"7, their marria&e was $learl #oid sin$e it was $elebrated durin& the e3isten$e o' his pre#ious

marria&e to petitioner.

In their appeal to the (ourt o' Appeals, ;landina and her $hildren assi&ned as one o' the errors alle&edl

$ommitted b the trial $ourt the $ir$umstan$e that the $ase was de$ided without a hearin&, in #iolation o' %e$. 1,

:ule !+, o' the :ules o' (ourt, whi$h pro#ides that 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.

:espondent appellate $ourt 'ound this &round alone su''i$ient to sustain the appeal hen$e, on 11 %eptember

1!!* it de$lared null and #oid the 7 Bo#ember 1!87 de$ision and 1* Februar 1!88 order o' the trial $ourt,

and dire$ted the remand o' the $ase to the trial $ourt 'or 'urther pro$eedin&s. ?8@ -n 18 April 1!!6 it denied

re$onsideration.?!@

%hould this $ase be remanded to the lower $ourt 'or 'urther pro$eedin&s Petitioner insists that there is no

need be$ause, 'irst, no le&al or 'a$tual issue obtains 'or resolution either as to the heirship o' the Padlan $hildren

or as to their respe$ti#e shares in the intestate estate o' the de$edent and, se$ond, the issue as to who between

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn10


12/40

petitioner and pri#ate respondent is the proper heir o' the de$edent is one o' law whi$h $an be resol#ed in the

present petition based on established 'a$ts and admissions o' the parties.

5e $annot sustain petitioner. The pro#ision relied upon b respondent $ourt is $lear 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.

5e a&ree with petitioner that no dispute e3ists either as to the ri&ht o' the si3 06 Padlan $hildren to inherit

'rom the de$edent be$ause there are proo's that the ha#e been dul a$2nowled&ed b him and petitioner

hersel' e#en re$o&ni4es them as heirs o' Arturo Padlan ?1+@ nor as to their respe$ti#e hereditar shares. ;ut

$ontro#ers remains as to who is the le&itimate sur#i#in& spouse o' Arturo. The trial $ourt, a'ter the parties

other than petitioner 'ailed to appear durin& the s$heduled hearin& on / -$tober 1!87 o' the motion 'or

immediate de$laration o' heirs and distribution o' estate, simpl issued an order re>uirin& the submission o' the

re$ords o' birth o' the Padlan $hildren within ten 01+ das 'rom re$eipt thereo', a'ter whi$h, with or without the

do$uments, the issue on de$laration o' heirs would be deemed submitted 'or resolution.

5e note that in her $omment to petitionerGs motion pri#ate respondent raised, amon& others, the issue as towhether petitioner was still entitled to inherit 'rom the de$edent $onsiderin& that she had se$ured a di#or$e in

the U.%.A. and in 'a$t had twi$e remarried. %he also in#o2ed the abo#e >uoted pro$edural rule.?11@ To this

petitioner replied that Arturo was a Filipino and as su$h remained le&all married to her in spite o' the di#or$e

the obtained.?1@ :eadin& between the lines, the impli$ation is that petitioner was no lon&er a Filipino $iti4en at

the time o' her di#or$e 'rom Arturo. This should ha#e prompted the trial $ourt to $ondu$t a hearin& to establish

her $iti4enship. The purpose o' a hearin& is to as$ertain the truth o' the matters in issue with the aid o'

do$umentar and testimonial e#iden$e as well as the ar&uments o' the parties either supportin& or opposin& the

e#iden$e. Instead, the lower $ourt per'un$toril settled her $laim in her 'a#or b merel applin& the rulin&

in Tenchavez v. Escaño.

Then in pri#ate respondentGs motion to set aside andHor re$onsider the lower $ourtGs de$ision she stressed

that the $iti4enship o' petitioner was rele#ant in the li&ht o' the rulin& in Van Dorn v. o!illo "r .?1/@ that aliens

!ay obtain divorces abroad, which !ay be reco#nized in the Philippines, provided they are valid accordin# to

their national law. %he praed there'ore that the $ase be set 'or hearin&.?1"@ Petitioner opposed the motion but

'ailed to s>uarel address the issue on her $iti4enship.?1*@ The trial $ourt did not &rant pri#ate respondentGs praer

'or a hearin& but pro$eeded to resol#e her motion with the 'indin& that both petitioner and Arturo were Filipino

$iti4ens and were married in the Philippines. ?16@ It maintained that their di#or$e obtained in 1!*" in %an

Fran$is$o, (ali'ornia, U.%.A., was not #alid in Philippine urisdi$tion. 5e dedu$e that the 'indin& on their

$iti4enship pertained solel to the time o' their marria&e as the trial $ourt was not supplied with a basis todetermine petitionerGs $iti4enship at the time o' their di#or$e. The doubt persisted as to whether she was stil

a Filipino $iti4en when their di#or$e was de$reed. The trial $ourt must ha#e o#erloo2ed the materialit o' this

aspe$t. -n$e pro#ed that she was no lon&er a Filipino $iti4en at the time o' their di#or$e, Van Dorn would

be$ome appli$able and petitioner $ould #er well lose her ri&ht to inherit 'rom Arturo.

:espondent a&ain raised in her appeal the issue on petitionerGs $iti4enship ?17@ it did not merit enli&htenment

howe#er 'rom petitioner.?18@ In the present pro$eedin&, petitionerGs $iti4enship is brou&ht anew to the 'ore b

pri#ate respondent. %he e#en 'urnishes the (ourt with the trans$ript o' steno&raphi$ notes ta2en on * Ma

1!!* durin& the hearin& 'or the re$onstitution o' the ori&inal o' a $ertain trans'er $erti'i$ate title as well as the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/124862.htm#_edn19


13/40

issuan$e o' new ownerGs dupli$ate $op thereo' be'ore another trial $ourt. 5hen as2ed whether she was an

Ameri$an $iti4en petitioner answered that she was sin$e 1!*". ?1!@ %i&ni'i$antl, the de$ree o' di#or$e o'

petitioner and Arturo was obtained in the same ear. Petitioner howe#er did not bother to 'ile a repl

memorandum to erase the un$ertaint about her $iti4enship at the time o' their di#or$e, a 'a$tual issue re>uirin&

hearin&s to be $ondu$ted b the trial $ourt. (onse>uentl, respondent appellate $ourt did not err in orderin& the

$ase returned to the trial $ourt 'or 'urther pro$eedin&s.

5e emphasi4e howe#er that the >uestion to be determined b the trial $ourt should be limited onl to theri&ht o' petitioner to inherit 'rom Arturo as his sur#i#in& spouse. Pri#ate respondentGs $laim to heirship was

alread resol#ed b the trial $ourt. %he and Arturo were married on April 1!"7 while the prior marria&e o'

petitioner and Arturo was subsistin& thereb resultin& in a bi&amous marria&e $onsidered #oid 'rom the

be&innin& under Arts. 8+ and 8/ o' the (i#il (ode. (onse>uentl, she is not a sur#i#in& spouse that $an inherit

'rom him as this status presupposes a le&itimate relationship.?+@

As re&ards the motion o' pri#ate respondent 'or petitioner and her $ounsel to be de$lared in $ontempt o'

$ourt and that the present petition be dismissed 'or 'orum shoppin&,?1@ the same la$2s merit. For 'orum

shoppin& to e3ist the a$tions must in#ol#e the same transa$tions and same essential 'a$ts and

$ir$umstan$es. There must also be identi$al $auses o' a$tion, sube$t matter and issue.?@ The present petition

deals with de$laration o' heirship while the subse>uent petitions 'iled be'ore the three 0/ trial $ourts $on$ern

the issuan$e o' new ownerGs dupli$ate $opies o' titles o' $ertain properties belon&in& to the estate o'

Arturo. -b#iousl, there is no reason to de$lare the e3isten$e o' 'orum shoppin&.

'(EREFORE, the petition is DEBIED. The de$ision o' respondent (ourt o' Appeals orderin& the

remand o' the $ase to the $ourt o' ori&in 'or 'urther pro$eedin&s and de$larin& null and #oid its de$ision holdin&

petitioner Fe D. Quita and :uperto T. Padlan as intestate heirs is AFFI:MED. The order o' the appellate $ourt

modi'in& its pre#ious de$ision b &rantin& oneChal' 01H o' the net hereditar estate to the Padlan $hildren,

namel, (laro, :i$ardo, Emmanuel,


14/40

# E C S O N

PAR#O, J .=

T/e C&'e

The case raises a conflict of la0s issue.

Ahat is before us is an appeal fro# the decision of the +ourt of ppeals J$K #odif!in) that of the

Re)ional Trial +ourt, +a#arines Sur, 6ranch (%, Iri)a +it! J5K declarin) respondent licia F. lorente

:herinafter referred to as Llicia


15/40

oren1o and Paula and 0as 0itnessed b! Paulas father and step#other. The a)ree#ent 0as

notari1ed b! Notar! Public Pedro Osabel. J$K

oren1o returned to the 2nited States and on Nove#ber $E, $&%$ filed for

divorce 0ith the Superior +ourt of the State of +alifornia in and for the +ount! of San Die)o. Paula

0as represented b! counsel, /ohn Rile!, and activel! participated in the proceedin)s. On Nove#be

5-, $&%$, the Superior +ourt of the State of +alifornia, for the +ount! of San Die)o found all factual

alle)ations to be true and issued an interlocutor! =ud)#ent of divorce. J$$K

On Dece#ber *, $&%5, the divorce decree beca#e final. J$5K

In the #eanti#e, oren1o returned to the Philippines.

On /anuar! $E, $&%', oren1o #arried licia F. lorente in Manila. J$(K pparentl!, licia had no

"no0led)e of the first #arria)e even if the! resided in the sa#e to0n as Paula, 0ho did not oppose

the #arria)e or cohabitation. J$*K

Fro# $&%' to $&'%, oren1o and licia lived to)ether as husband and 0ife.J$%K

Their t0ent!five:5%< !ear union produced three children, Raul, u1 and 6everl!, all surna#ed lorente. J$EK

On March $(, $&'$, oren1o e@ecuted a ast Aill and Testa#ent. The 0ill 0as notari1ed b!

Notar! Public Salvador M. Occiano, dul! si)ned b! oren1o 0ith attestin) 0itnesses Francisco 4u)o,

Francisco Neibres and Tito Tra=ano. In the 0ill, oren1o be?ueathed all his propert! to licia and their

three children, to 0it

L:$< I )ive and be?ueath to #! 0ife I+I R. FORT2NO e@clusivel! #! residential house

and lot, located at San Francisco, Nabua, +a#arines Sur, Philippines, includin) the

personal properties and other #ovables or belon)in)s that #a! be found or e@istin)

therein3

L:5< I )ive and be?ueath e@clusivel! to #! 0ife licia R. Fortuno and to #! children, Raul

F. lorente, u1 F. lorente and 6everl! F. lorente, in e?ual shares, all #! real properties

0hatsoever and 0heresoever located, specificall! #! real properties located at 6aran)a!

roldao, Nabua, +a#arines Sur3 6aran)a! Palo!on, Nabua, +a#arines Sur3 6aran)a!

6aras, Sitio Pu)a, Nabua, +a#arines Sur3 and 6aran)a! Palo!on, Sitio Nalilidon),

Nabua, +a#arines Sur3

L:(< I li"e0ise )ive and be?ueath e@clusivel! unto #! 0ife licia R. Fortuno and unto #!

children, Raul F. lorente, u1 F. lorente and 6everl! F. lorente, in e?ual shares, #! real

properties located in ue1on +it! Philippines, and covered b! Transfer +ertificate of Title

No. $''E%53 and #! lands in ntipolo, Ri1al, Philippines, covered b! Transfer +ertificate

of Title Nos. $5*$&E and $E%$'', both of the Re)istr! of Deeds of the province of Ri1al,

Philippines3

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn16


16/40

L:*< That their respective shares in the above#entioned properties, 0hether real or

personal properties, shall not be disposed of, ceded, sold and conve!ed to an! other

persons, but could onl! be sold, ceded, conve!ed and disposed of b! and a#on)

the#selves3

L:%< I desi)nate #! 0ife I+I R. FORT2NO to be the sole e@ecutor of this #! ast Aill

and Testa#ent, and in her default or incapacit! of the latter to act, an! of #! children inthe order of a)e, if of a)e3

L:E< I hereb! direct that the e@ecutor na#ed herein or her la0ful substitute should served

:sic < 0ithout bond3

L:-< I hereb! revo"e an! and all #! other 0ills, codicils, or testa#entar! dispositions

heretofore e@ecuted, si)ned, or published, b! #e3

L:'< It is #! final 0ish and desire that if I die, no relatives of #ine in an! de)ree in the

lorentes Side should ever bother and disturb in an! #anner 0hatsoever #! 0ife licia R.

Fortunato and #! children 0ith respect to an! real or personal properties I )ave and

be?ueathed respectivel! to each one of the# b! virtue of this ast Aill and Testa#ent. J$-K

On Dece#ber $*, $&'(, oren1o filed 0ith the Re)ional Trial +ourt, Iri)a, +a#arines Sur, a

petition for the probate and allo0ance of his last 0ill and testa#ent 0herein oren1o #oved that licia

be appointed Special d#inistratri@ of his estate. J$'K

On /anuar! $', $&'*, the trial court denied the #otion for the reason that the testator oren1o

0as still alive.J$&K

On /anuar! 5*, $&'*, findin) that the 0ill 0as dul! e@ecuted, the trial court ad#itted the 0ill to

probate.J5K

On /une $$, $&'%, before the proceedin)s could be ter#inated, oren1o died. J5$K

On Septe#ber *, $&'%, Paula filed 0ith the sa#e court a petition J55K for letters of ad#inistration

over oren1os estate in her favor. Paula contended :$< that she 0as oren1os survivin) spouse, :5<

that the various propert! 0ere ac?uired durin) their #arria)e, :(< that oren1os 0ill disposed of all

his propert! in favor of licia and her children, encroachin) on her le)iti#e and $5 share in thecon=u)al propert!.J5(K

On Dece#ber $(, $&'%, licia filed in the testate proceedin) :Sp. Proc. No. IR-%%


17/40

On Ma! $', $&'-, the Re)ional Trial +ourt issued a =oint decision, thus

LAherefore, considerin) that this court has so found that the divorce decree )ranted to the

late oren1o lorente is void and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the #arria)e he

contracted 0ith licia Fortunato on /anuar! $E, $&%' at Manila is li"e0ise void. This bein)

so the petition of licia F. lorente for the issuance of letters testa#entar! is

denied. i"e0ise, she is not entitled to receive an! share fro# the estate even if the 0ill

especiall! said so her relationship 0ith oren1o havin) )ained the status of para#our

0hich is under rt. -(& :$


18/40

On /ul! ($, $&&%, the +ourt of ppeals pro#ul)ated its decision, affir#in) 0ith #odification the

decision of the trial court in this 0ise

LA49R9FOR9, the decision appealed fro# is hereb! FFIRM9D 0ith the

MODIFI+TION that licia is declared as coo0ner of 0hatever properties she and the

deceased #a! have ac?uired durin) the t0ent!five :5%< !ears of cohabitation.

LSO ORD9R9D.J(5K

On u)ust 5%, $&&%, petitioner filed 0ith the +ourt of ppeals a #otion for reconsideration of the

decision.J((K

On March 5$, $&&E, the +ourt of ppeals, J(*K denied the #otion for lac" of #erit.

4ence, this petition.J(%K

T/e ''e

Strippin) the petition of its le)alese and sortin) throu)h the various ar)u#ents raised, J(EK the issue

is si#ple. Aho are entitled to inherit fro# the late oren1o N. lorenteQ

Ae do not a)ree 0ith the decision of the +ourt of ppeals. Ae re#and the case to the trial cour

for rulin) on the intrinsic validit! of the 0ill of the deceased.

T/e A22(c&be L&>

The fact that the late oren1o N. lorente beca#e an #erican citi1en lon) before and at the ti#e

of :$< his divorce fro# Paula3 :5< #arria)e to licia3 :(< e@ecution of his 0ill3 and :*< death, is dul!established, ad#itted and undisputed.

Thus, as a rule, issues arisin) fro# these incidents are necessaril! )overned b! forei)n la0.

The +ivil +ode clearl! provides

Lrt. $%. a0s relatin) to fa#il! ri)hts and duties, or to the status, condition and le)al

capacit! of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even thou)h livin)

abroad.

Lrt. $E. Real propert! as 0ell as personal propert! is sub=ect to the la0 of the countr!

0here it is situated.

L4o0ever, intestate and testa#entar! succession, both 0ith respect to the order of

succession and to the a#ount of successional ri)hts and to the intrinsic validit! of

testa#entar! provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn36


19/40

succession is under consideration, 0hatever #a! be the nature of the propert! and

re)ardless of the countr! 0herein said propert! #a! be found. :emphasis ours<

True, forei)n la0s do not prove the#selves in our =urisdiction and our courts are not authori1ed to

ta"e =udicial notice of the#. i"e an! other fact, the! #ust be alle)ed and proved. J(-K

Ahile the substance of the forei)n la0 0as pleaded, the +ourt of ppeals did not ad#it the

forei)n la0. The +ourt of ppeals and the trial court called to the fore the renvoi doctrine, 0here thecase 0as Lreferred bac" to the la0 of the decedents do#icile, in this case, Philippine la0.

Ae note that 0hile the trial court stated that the la0 of Ne0 Gor" 0as not sufficientl! proven, in

the sa#e breath it #ade the cate)orical, albeit e?uall! unproven state#ent that L#erican la0 follo0s

the do#iciliar! theor! hence, Philippine la0 applies 0hen deter#inin) the validit! of oren1os 0ill. J('K

(r't, there is no such thin) as one #erican la0. The >national la0> indicated in rticle $E of the

+ivil +ode cannot possibl! appl! to )eneral #erican la0. There is no such la0 )overnin) the validit!

of testa#entar! provisions in the 2nited States. 9ach State of the union has its o0n la0 applicable to

its citi1ens and in force onl! 0ithin the State. It can therefore refer to no other than the la0 of the

State of 0hich the decedent 0as a resident. J(&K Seco*), there is no sho0in) that the application of

the renvoi doctrine is called for or re?uired b! Ne0 Gor" State la0.

The trial court held that the 0ill 0as intrinsicall! invalid since it contained dispositions in favor of

lice, 0ho in the trial courts opinion 0as a #ere paramour . The trial court thre0 the 0ill out, leavin)

lice, and her t0o children, Raul and u1, 0ith nothin).

The +ourt of ppeals also disre)arded the 0ill. It declared lice entitled to one half :$5< of

0hatever propert! she and oren1o ac?uired durin) their cohabitation, appl!in) rticle $** of the +ivil

+ode of the Philippines.

The hast! application of Philippine la0 and the co#plete disre)ard of the 0ill, alread! probated as

dul! e@ecuted in accordance 0ith the for#alities of Philippine la0, is fatal, especially in light of the

factual and legal circumstances here obtaining .

"&()(t3 o t/e ore(+* #(:orce

In an &orn v. "omillo %r .J*K 0e held that o0in) to the nationalit! principle e#bodied in rticle $%

of the +ivil +ode, onl! Philippine nationals are covered b! the polic! a)ainst absolute divorces, the

sa#e bein) considered contrar! to our concept of public polic! and #oralit!. In the sa#e case, the

+ourt ruled that aliens #a! obtain divorces abroad, provided the! are valid accordin) to their national

la0.

+itin) this land#ar" case, the +ourt held in 4uita v. Court of Appeals,J*$K that once proven that

respondent 0as no lon)er a Filipino citi1en 0hen he obtained the divorce fro# petitioner, the rulin)

in an &orn 0ould beco#e applicable and petitioner could Lver! 0ell lose her ri)ht to inherit fro#

hi#.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn41


20/40

In !ilapil v. ba50Somera,J*5K 0e reco)ni1ed the divorce obtained b! the respondent in his countr!,

the Federal Republic of ;er#an!. There, 0e stated that divorce and its le)al effects #a! be

reco)ni1ed in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in vie0 of the nationalit! principle in

our civil la0 on the status of persons.

For failin) to appl! these doctrines, the decision of the +ourt of ppeals #ust be reversed. J*(K Ae

hold that the divorce obtained b! oren1o 4. lorente fro# his first 0ife Paula 0as valid and

reco)ni1ed in this =urisdiction as a #atter of co#it!. No0, the effects of this divorce :as to thesuccession to the estate of the decedent< are #atters best left to the deter#ination of the trial court.

"&()(t3 o t/e ?(

The +ivil +ode provides

Lrt. $-. The forms and solemnities of contracts, 0ills, and other public instru#ents

shall be )overned b! the la0s of the country in which they are executed .

LAhen the acts referred to are e@ecuted before the diplo#atic or consular officials of theRepublic of the Philippines in a forei)n countr!, the sole#nities established b! Philippine

la0s shall be observed in their e@ecution. :underscoring ours<

The clear intent of oren1o to be?ueath his propert! to his second 0ife and children b! her is

)larin)l! sho0n in the 0ill he e@ecuted. Ae do not 0ish to frustrate his 0ishes, since he 0as a

forei)ner, not covered b! our la0s on Lfa#il! ri)hts and duties, status, condition and le)al capacit!. J**K

Ahether the 0ill is intrinsicall! valid and 0ho shall inherit fro# oren1o are issues best proved b!

forei)n la0 0hich #ust be pleaded and proved. Ahether the 0ill 0as e@ecuted in accordance 0iththe for#alities re?uired is ans0ered b! referrin) to Philippine la0. In fact, the 0ill 0as dul! probated.

s a )uide ho0ever, the trial court should note that 0hatever public polic! or )ood custo#s #a!

be involved in our s!ste# of le)iti#es, +on)ress did not intend to e@tend the sa#e to the succession

of forei)n nationals. +on)ress specificall! left the a#ount of successional ri)hts to the decedent8s

national la0.J*%K

4avin) thus ruled, 0e find it unnecessar! to pass upon the other issues raised.

T/e &o

?$EREORE, the petition is ;RNT9D. The decision of the +ourt of ppeals in +;. R. SP

No. $-**E pro#ul)ated on /ul! ($, $&&% is S9T SID9.

In lieu thereof, the +ourt R9V9RS9S the decision of the Re)ional Trial +ourt and R9+O;NI9S

as VID the decree of divorce )ranted in favor of the deceased oren1o N. lorente b! the Superior

+ourt of the State of +alifornia in and for the +ount! of San Die)o, #ade final on Dece#ber *, $&%5.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn45


21/40

Further, the +ourt R9MNDS the cases to the court of ori)in for deter#ination of the intrinsic

validit! of oren1o N. lorentes 0ill and deter#ination of the parties successional ri)hts allo0in)

proof of forei)n la0 0ith instructions that the trial court shall proceed 0ith all deliberate dispatch to

settle the estate of the deceased 0ithin the fra#e0or" of the Rules of +ourt.

No costs.

SO OR#ERE#.

&avide %r. C.%. (Chairman) !uno 6apunan and 7nares0Santiago %%. concur.

:EPU;9I( -F TE

PI9IPPIBE%,

P e t i t i o n e r ,

C versusC

(:A%U% 9. I=-=,

: e s p o n d e n t.

.:. Bo. 1**77

Present

PUB-,

(hairman,

AU%T:IACMA:TIBE


22/40

(ase Bo. (E;C++77, dated /+ -$tober 1!!8, ?@ de$larin& the marria&e between respondent

(rasus 9. Io and Fel Ada :osalCIo null and #oid on the basis o' Arti$le /6 o' the Famil

(ode o' the Philippines.

The pro$eedin&s be'ore the :T( $ommen$ed with the 'ilin& o' a (omplaint?/@ 'or

de$laration o' nullit o' marria&e b respondent (rasus on * Mar$h 1!!7. A$$ordin& to the

said (omplaint, respondent (rasus married Fel on 16 De$ember 1!61 at ;rad'ord Memorial

(hur$h, )ones A#enue, (ebu (it. As a result o' their union, the had 'i#e $hildren K (rasus

)r., Daphne, Debbie, (al#ert, and (arlos K who are now all o' le&al a&es. A'ter the $elebration

o' their marria&e, respondent (rasus dis$o#ered that Fel was LhotCtempered, a na&&er and

e3tra#a&ant. In 1!8", Fel le't the Philippines 'or the United %tates o' Ameri$a 0U.%.A.,

lea#in& all o' their 'i#e $hildren, the oun&est then bein& onl si3 ears old, to the $are o'

respondent (rasus. ;arel a ear a'ter Fel le't 'or the U.%.A., respondent (rasus re$ei#ed a

letter 'rom her re>uestin& that he si&n the en$losed di#or$e papers he disre&arded the said

re>uest. %ometime in 1!8*, respondent (rasus learned, throu&h the letters sent b Fel to their

$hildren, that Fel &ot married to an Ameri$an, with whom she e#entuall had a $hild. In 1!87

Fel $ame ba$2 to the Philippines with her Ameri$an 'amil, stain& at (ebu Pla4a otel in

(ebu (it. :espondent (rasus did not bother to tal2 to Fel be$ause he was a'raid he mi&ht not

be able to bear the sorrow and the pain she had $aused him. Fel returned to the Philippines

se#eral times more in 1!!+, 'or the weddin& o' their eldest $hild, (rasus, )r. in 1!!, 'or the

brain operation o' their 'ourth $hild, (al#ert and in 1!!*, 'or un2nown reasons. Fel $ontinued

to li#e with her Ameri$an 'amil in Bew )erse, U.%.A. %he had been openl usin& the surname

o' her Ameri$an husband in the Philippines and in the U.%.A. For the weddin& o' (rasus, )r.

Fel hersel' had in#itations made in whi$h she was named as LMrs. Fel Ada Mi$2lus. At the

time the (omplaint was 'iled, it had been 1/ ears sin$e Fel le't and abandoned respondent

(rasus, and there was no more possibilit o' re$on$iliation between them. :espondent (rasus

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn3


23/40

'inall alle&ed in his (omplaint that FelNs a$ts brou&ht dan&er and dishonor to the 'amil, and

$learl demonstrated her ps$holo&i$al in$apa$it to per'orm the essential obli&ations o'

marria&e. %u$h in$apa$it, bein& in$urable and $ontinuin&, $onstitutes a &round 'or de$laration

o' nullit o' marria&e under Arti$le /6, in relation to Arti$les 68, 7+, and 7, o' the Famil (ode

o' the Philippines.

Fel 'iled her Answer and (ounter$laim?"@ with the :T( on +* )une 1!!7. %he asserted

therein that she was alread an Ameri$an $iti4en sin$e 1!88 and was now married to %tephen

Mi$2lus. 5hile she admitted bein& pre#iousl married to respondent (rasus and ha#in& 'i#e

$hildren with him, Fel re'uted the other alle&ations made b respondent (rasus in his

(omplaint. %he e3plained that she was no more hotCtempered than an normal person, and she

ma had been indi&nant at respondent (rasus on $ertain o$$asions but it was be$ause o' the

latterNs drun2enness, womani4in&, and la$2 o' sin$ere e''ort to 'ind emploment and to

$ontribute to the maintenan$e o' their household. %he $ould not ha#e been e3tra#a&ant sin$e

the 'amil hardl had enou&h mone 'or basi$ needs. Indeed, Fel le't 'or abroad 'or 'inan$ial

reasons as respondent (rasus had no ob and what she was then earnin& as the sole breadwinner

in the Philippines was insu''i$ient to support their 'amil. Althou&h she le't all o' her $hildren

with respondent (rasus, she $ontinued to pro#ide 'inan$ial support to them, as well as, to

respondent (rasus. %ubse>uentl, Fel was able to brin& her $hildren to the U.%.A., e3$ept 'or

one, (al#ert, who had to sta behind 'or medi$al reasons. 5hile she did 'ile 'or di#or$e 'rom

respondent (rasus, she denied ha#in& hersel' sent a letter to respondent (rasus re>uestin& him

to si&n the en$losed di#or$e papers. A'ter se$urin& a di#or$e 'rom respondent (rasus, Fel

married her Ameri$an husband and a$>uired Ameri$an $iti4enship. %he ar&ued that her

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn4


24/40

marria&e to her Ameri$an husband was le&al be$ause now bein& an Ameri$an $iti4en, her status

shall be &o#erned b the law o' her present nationalit. Fel also pointed out that respondent

(rasus himsel' was presentl li#in& with another woman who bore him a $hild. %he also

a$$used respondent (rasus o' misusin& the amount o' P!+,+++.++ whi$h she ad#an$ed to him to

'inan$e the brain operation o' their son, (al#ert. -n the basis o' the 'ore&oin&, Fel also praed

that the :T( de$lare her marria&e to respondent (rasus null and #oid and that respondent

(rasus be ordered to pa to Fel the P!+,+++.++ she ad#an$ed to him, with interest, plus, moral

and e3emplar dama&es, attorneNs 'ees, and liti&ation e3penses.

A'ter respondent (rasus and Fel had 'iled their respe$ti#e PreCTrial ;rie's, ?*@ the :T(

a''orded both parties the opportunit to present their e#iden$e. Petitioner :epubli$ parti$ipated

in the trial throu&h the Pro#in$ial Prose$utor o' (ebu.?6@

:espondent (rasus submitted the 'ollowin& pie$es o' e#iden$e in support o' his

(omplaint 01 his own testimon on +8 %eptember 1!!7, in whi$h he essentiall reiterated the

alle&ations in his (omplaint?7@ 0 the (erti'i$ation, dated 1/ April 1!8!, b the ealth

Department o' (ebu (it, on the re$ordin& o' the Marria&e (ontra$t between respondent (rasus

and Fel in the :e&ister o' Deeds, su$h marria&e $elebration ta2in& pla$e on 16 De$ember

1!61?8@ and 0/ the in#itation to the weddin& o' (rasus, )r., their eldest son, wherein Fel openl

used her Ameri$an husbandNs surname, Mi$2lus.?!@

FelNs $ounsel 'iled a Boti$e,?1+@ and, later on, a Motion,?11@ to ta2e the deposition o'

witnesses, namel, Fel and her $hildren, (rasus, )r. and Daphne, upon written interro&atories,

be'ore the $onsular o''i$ers o' the Philippines in Bew =or2 and (ali'ornia, U.%.A, where the

said witnesses reside. Despite the -rders?1@ and (ommissions?1/@ issued b the :T( to the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn13


25/40


26/40

oin& o#er plainti''Ns testimon whi$h is de$idedl $redible, the (ourt 'inds that

the de'endant had indeed e3hibited unmista2able si&ns o' su$h ps$holo&i$al in$apa$it

to $ompl with her marital obli&ations. These are her e3$essi#e disposition to material

thin&s o#er and abo#e the marital stabilit. That su$h in$apa$it was alread there at the

time o' the marria&e in >uestion is shown b de'endantNs own attitude towards her

marria&e to plainti''. And 'or these reasons there is a le&al &round to de$lare the marria&e

o' plainti'' (rasus 9. Io and de'endant Fel Ada :osal Io null and #oid ab initio.?1*@

Petitioner :epubli$, belie#in& that the a'oreC>uoted )ud&ment o' the :T( was $ontrar to

law and e#iden$e, 'iled an appeal with the (ourt o' Appeals. The appellate $ourt, thou&h, in its

De$ision, dated /+ )ul ++1, a''irmed the appealed )ud&ment o' the :T(, 'indin& no re#ersible

error therein. It e#en o''ered additional ratio$ination 'or de$larin& the marria&e between

respondent (rasus and Fel null and #oid, to wit K

De'endant se$ured a di#or$e 'rom plainti''Cappellee abroad, has remarried, and is

now permanentl residin& in the United %tates. Plainti''Cappellee $ate&ori$all stated this

as one o' his reasons 'or see2in& the de$laration o' nullit o' their marria&eO

O

Arti$le 6 o' the Famil (ode pro#ides

LArt. 6. All marria&es solemni4ed outside the Philippines ina$$ordan$e with the laws in 'or$e in the $ountr where the were

solemni4ed, and #alid there as su$h, shall also be #alid in this $ountr,

e3$ept those prohibited under Arti$les /*01, 0", 0* and 06, /6, /7 and /8.

L5E:E A MA::IAE ;ET5EEB A FI9IPIB- (ITIuoted $an not be e3tended to a

Filipino $iti4en whose spouse e#entuall embra$es another $iti4enship and thus be$omes

hersel' an alien.



27/40


28/40

%oli$itor eneral, to inter#ene on behal' o' the %tate, in pro$eedin&s 'or annulment and

de$laration o' nullit o' marria&es.

A'ter ha#in& re#iewed the re$ords o' this $ase and the appli$able laws and urispruden$e,

this (ourt 'inds the instant Petition to be meritorious.

I

The totality of evidence presented durin# trial is insufficient to support the findin#

of psycholo#ical incapacity of &ely.

Arti$le /6, $on$ededl one o' the more $ontro#ersial pro#isions o' the Famil (ode o'

the Philippines, reads K

A:T. /6. A marria&e $ontra$ted b an part who, at the time o' the $elebration,

was ps$holo&i$all in$apa$itated to $ompl with the essential marital obli&ations o' marria&e, shall li2ewise be #oid e#en i' su$h in$apa$it be$omes mani'est onl a'ter its

solemni4ation.

Issues most $ommonl arise as to what $onstitutes ps$holo&i$al in$apa$it. In a series o'

$ases, this (ourt laid down &uidelines 'or determinin& its e3isten$e.

In 'antos v. %ourt of (ppeals,?+@ the term ps$holo&i$al in$apa$it was de'ined, thus K

L. . . ?P@s$holo&i$al in$apa$it should re'er to no less than a mental 0not

phsi$al in$apa$it that $auses a part to be trul $o&niti#e o' the basi$ marital

$o#enants that $on$omitantl must be assumed and dis$har&ed b the parties to the

marria&e whi$h, as so e3pressed b Arti$le 68 o' the Famil (ode, in$lude their mutual

obli&ations to li#e to&ether, obser#e lo#e, respe$t and 'idelit and render help and

support. There is hardl an doubt that the intendment o' the law has been to $on'ine the



29/40

meanin& o' Lps$holo&i$al in$apa$it to the most serious $ases o' personalit disorders

$learl demonstrati#e o' an utter insensiti#it or inabilit to &i#e meanin& and

si&ni'i$an$e to the marria&e. This ps$holo&i$al $ondition must e3ist at the time the

marria&e is $elebratedO?1@

The ps$holo&i$al in$apa$it must be $hara$teri4ed b K

0a ra#it K It must be &ra#e or serious su$h that the part would be in$apable o'

$arrin& out the ordinar duties re>uired in a marria&e

0b )uridi$al Ante$eden$e K It must be rooted in the histor o' the part antedatin& the

marria&e, althou&h the o#ert mani'estations ma emer&e onl a'ter the marria&e and

0$ In$urabilit K It must be in$urable or, e#en i' it were otherwise, the $ure would be

beond the means o' the part in#ol#ed.?@

More de'initi#e &uidelines in the interpretation and appli$ation o' Arti$le /6 o' the

Famil (ode o' the Philippines were handed down b this (ourt in epublic v. %ourt of

(ppeals and $olina,?/@

whi$h, althou&h >uite len&th, b its si&ni'i$an$e, deser#es to be

reprodu$ed below K

01 The burden o' proo' to show the nullit o' the marria&e belon&s to the

plainti''. An doubt should be resol#ed in 'a#or o' the e3isten$e and $ontinuation o' the

marria&e and a&ainst its dissolution and nullit. This is rooted in the 'a$t that both our

(onstitution and our laws $herish the #alidit o' marria&e and unit o' the 'amil. Thus,

our (onstitution de#otes an entire Arti$le on the Famil, re$o&ni4in& it Las the 'oundation

o' the nation. It de$rees marria&e as le&all Lin#iolable, thereb prote$tin& it 'rom

dissolution at the whim o' the parties. ;oth the 'amil and marria&e are to be Lprote$ted b the state.

The Famil (ode e$hoes this $onstitutional edi$t on marria&e and the 'amil and

emphasi4es their permanen$e, in#iolabilit and solidarit.

0 The root $ause o' the ps$holo&i$al in$apa$it must be 0a medi$all or

$lini$all identi'ied, 0b alle&ed in the $omplaint, 0$ su''i$ientl pro#en b e3perts and0d $learl e3plained in the de$ision. Arti$le /6 o' the Famil (ode re>uires that the

in$apa$it must be ps$holo&i$al C not phsi$al, althou&h its mani'estations andHor

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn23


30/40

smptoms ma be phsi$al. The e#iden$e must $on#in$e the $ourt that the parties, or one

o' them, was mentall or ps$hi$all ill to su$h an e3tent that the person $ould not ha#e

2nown the obli&ations he was assumin&, or 2nowin& them, $ould not ha#e &i#en #alid

assumption thereo'. Althou&h no e3ample o' su$h in$apa$it need be &i#en here so as

not to limit the appli$ation o' the pro#ision under the prin$iple o' e)usde! #eneris,

ne#ertheless su$h root $ause must be identi'ied as a ps$holo&i$al illness and its

in$apa$itatin& nature 'ull e3plained. E3pert e#iden$e ma be &i#en b >uali'ied

ps$hiatrists and $lini$al ps$holo&ists. 0/ The in$apa$it must be pro#en to be e3istin& at Lthe time o' the $elebration o'

the marria&e. The e#iden$e must show that the illness was e3istin& when the parties

e3$han&ed their LI doGs. The mani'estation o' the illness need not be per$ei#able at su$h

time, but the illness itsel' must ha#e atta$hed at su$h moment, or prior thereto.

0" %u$h in$apa$it must also be shown to be medi$all or $lini$all permanent or in$urable. %u$h in$urabilit ma be absolute or e#en relati#e onl in re&ard to the other

spouse, not ne$essaril absolutel a&ainst e#erone o' the same se3. Furthermore, su$h

in$apa$it must be rele#ant to the assumption o' marria&e obli&ations, not ne$essaril to

those not related to marria&e, li2e the e3er$ise o' a pro'ession or emploment in a obO

0* %u$h illness must be &ra#e enou&h to brin& about the disabilit o' the part toassume the essential obli&ations o' marria&e. Thus, Lmild $hara$teriolo&i$al pe$uliarities,

mood $han&es, o$$asional emotional outbursts $annot be a$$epted as root $auses. The

illness must be shown as downri&ht in$apa$it or inabilit, not a re'usal, ne&le$t or

di''i$ult, mu$h less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or super#enin& disablin&

'a$tor in the person, an ad#erse inte&ral element in the personalit stru$ture that

e''e$ti#el in$apa$itates the person 'rom reall a$$eptin& and thereb $omplin& with theobli&ations essential to marria&e.

06 The essential marital obli&ations must be those embra$ed b Arti$les 68 up to

71 o' the Famil (ode as re&ards the husband and wi'e as well as Arti$les +, 1 and

* o' the same (ode in re&ard to parents and their $hildren. %u$h nonC$omplied marital

obli&ation0s must also be stated in the petition, pro#en b e#iden$e and in$luded in thete3t o' the de$ision.

07 Interpretations &i#en b the Bational Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal o' the

(atholi$ (hur$h in the Philippines, while not $ontrollin& or de$isi#e, should be &i#en

&reat respe$t b our $ourtsO

08 The trial $ourt must order the prose$utin& attorne or 'is$al and the %oli$itor

eneral to appear as $ounsel 'or the state. Bo de$ision shall be handed down unless the

%oli$itor eneral issues a $erti'i$ation, whi$h will be >uoted in the de$ision, brie'l

statin& therein his reasons 'or his a&reement or opposition, as the $ase ma be, to the

petition. The %oli$itor eneral, alon& with the prose$utin& attorne, shall submit to the

$ourt su$h $erti'i$ation within 'i'teen 01* das 'rom the date the $ase is deemedsubmitted 'or resolution o' the $ourt. The %oli$itor eneral shall dis$har&e the e>ui#alent

'un$tion o' the defensor vinculi$ontemplated under (anon 1+!*.?"@



31/40


32/40

It is worth to emphasi4e that Arti$le /6 o' the Famil (ode o' the Philippines

$ontemplates downri&ht in$apa$it or inabilit to ta2e $o&ni4an$e o' and to assume the basi$

marital obli&ations not a mere re'usal, ne&le$t or di''i$ult, mu$h less, ill will, on the part o' the

errant spouse.?6@ Irre$on$ilable di''eren$es, $on'li$tin& personalities, emotional immaturit and

irresponsibilit, phsi$al abuse, habitual al$oholism, se3ual in'idelit or per#ersion, and

abandonment, b themsel#es, also do not warrant a 'indin& o' ps$holo&i$al in$apa$it under

the said Arti$le.?7@

As has alread been stressed b this (ourt in pre#ious $ases, Arti$le /6 Lis not to be

$on'used with a di#or$e law that $uts the marital bond at the time the $auses there'ore mani'est

themsel#es. It re'ers to a serious ps$holo&i$al illness a''li$tin& a part e#en be'ore the

$elebration o' marria&e. It is a malad so &ra#e and so permanent as to depri#e one o'

awareness o' the duties and responsibilities o' the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.?8@

The e#iden$e ma ha#e pro#en that Fel $ommitted a$ts that hurt and embarrassed

respondent (rasus and the rest o' the 'amil. er hotCtemper, na&&in&, and e3tra#a&an$e her

abandonment o' respondent (rasus her marria&e to an Ameri$an and e#en her 'launtin& o' her

Ameri$an 'amil and her Ameri$an surname, ma indeed be mani'estations o' her alle&ed

in$apa$it to $ompl with her marital obli&ations nonetheless, the root $ause 'or su$h was not

identi'ied. I' the root $ause o' the in$apa$it was not identi'ied, then it $annot be satis'a$toril

established as a ps$holo&i$al or mental de'e$t that is serious or &ra#e neither $ould it be

pro#en to be in e3isten$e at the time o' $elebration o' the marria&e nor that it is in$urable.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn28


33/40

5hile the personal e3amination o' Fel b a ps$hiatrist or ps$holo&ist is no lon&er mandator

'or the de$laration o' nullit o' their marria&e under Arti$le /6 o' the Famil (ode o' the

Philippines, b #irtue o' this (ourtNs rulin& in $arcos v. $arcos,?!@ respondent (rasus must still

ha#e $omplied with the re>uirement laid down in epublic v. %ourt of (ppeals and

$olina?/+@ that the root $ause o' the in$apa$it be identi'ied as a ps$holo&i$al illness and that

its in$apa$itatin& nature be 'ull e3plained.

In an $ase, an doubt shall be resol#ed in 'a#or o' the #alidit o' the marria&e. ?/1@ Bo

less than the (onstitution o' 1!87 sets the poli$ to prote$t and stren&then the 'amil as the

basi$ so$ial institution and marria&e as the 'oundation o' the 'amil.?/@

II

(rticle +, para#raph + of the &a!ily %ode of the Philippines is not applicable to

the case at bar.

A$$ordin& to Arti$le 6, para&raph o' the Famil (ode o' the Philippines K

5here a marria&e between a Filipino $iti4en and a 'orei&ner is #alidl $elebrated

and a di#or$e is therea'ter #alidl obtained abroad b the alien spouse $apa$itatin& him or

her to remarr, the Filipino spouse shall li2ewise ha#e $apa$it to remarr under

Philippine law.

As it is worded, Arti$le 6, para&raph , re'ers to a spe$ial situation wherein one o' the

$ouple &ettin& married is a Filipino $iti4en and the other a 'orei&ner at the time the marria&e

was $elebrated. % -/ 0"-# "#$ -er" -#er0re"-o#, e /"-$ 0ro3-/-o# c"##o be "00-e$

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn32


34/40

o e c"/e o re/0o#$e# Cr"/5/ "#$ -/ -e Fe bec"5/e " e -me Fe ob"-#e$ er

$-3orce, /e "/ /- " F--0-#o c--7e# . Althou&h the e3a$t date was not established, Fel

hersel' admitted in her Answer 'iled be'ore the :T( that she obtained a di#or$e 'rom

respondent (rasus sometime a'ter she le't 'or the United %tates -# 1984, a'ter whi$h she married

her Ameri$an husband in 1!8*. In the same Answer, she alle&ed that she had been an Ameri$an

$iti4en /-#ce 1988. At the time she 'iled 'or di#or$e, Fel was /- " F--0-#o c--7e#, and

pursuant to the nationalit prin$iple embodied in Arti$le 1* o' the (i#il (ode o' the Philippines

she was still bound b Philippine laws on 'amil ri&hts and duties, status, $ondition, and le&al

$apa$it, e#en when she was alread li#in& abroad. Philippine laws, then and e#en until now

do not allow and re$o&ni4e di#or$e between Filipino spouses. Thus, Fel $ould not ha#e

#alidl obtained a di#or$e 'rom respondent (rasus.

III

The 'olicitor -eneral is authorized to intervene, on behalf of the epublic, in proceedin#s for annul!ent and declaration of nullity of !arria#es.

In#o2in& Arti$le "8 o' the Famil (ode o' the Philippines, respondent (rasus ar&ued that

onl the prose$utin& attorne or 'is$al assi&ned to the :T( ma inter#ene on behal' o' the %tate

in pro$eedin&s 'or annulment or de$laration o' nullit o' marria&es hen$e, the -''i$e o' the

%oli$itor eneral had no personalit to 'ile the instant Petition on behal' o' the %tate. Arti$le "8

pro#ides K

A:T. "8. In all $ases o' annulment or de$laration o' absolute nullit o' marria&e,

the (ourt shall order the prose$utin& attorne or 'is$al assi&ned to it to appear on behal'


35/40

o' the %tate to ta2e steps to pre#ent $ollusion between the parties and to ta2e $are that the

e#iden$e is not 'abri$ated or suppressed.

That Arti$le "8 does not e3pressl mention the %oli$itor eneral does not bar him or his

cases to synthesize

Documents