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.
