FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124371. November 23, 2000]

PAULA T. LLORENTE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS a! AL"C"A
F. LLORENTE, respondents.
# E C " S " O N
PAR#O, J.$
T%e Ca&e
The case raises a conflict of laws issue.
What is before us is an appeal from the decision of the Court of ppeals
!"#
modif$in%
that of the Re%ional Trial Court& Camarines Sur& 'ranch ()& Iri%a Cit$
!*#
declarin%
respondent licia F. +lorente ,herinafter referred to as -licia./& as co0owners of
whate1er propert$ she and the deceased +oren2o N. +lorente ,hereinafter referred to as
-+oren2o./ ma$ ha1e ac3uired durin% the twent$0fi1e ,*)/ $ears that the$ li1ed to%ether
as husband and wife.
T%e Fa'(&
The deceased +oren2o N. +lorente was an enlisted ser1iceman of the 4nited States
Na1$ from 5arch "6& "7*8 to September (6& "7)8.
!(#
On Februar$ **& "7(8& +oren2o and petitioner 9aula +lorente ,hereinafter referred
to as -9aula./ were married before a parish priest& Roman Catholic Church& in Nabua&
Camarines Sur.
!:#
'efore the outbrea; of the 9acific War& +oren2o departed for the 4nited States and
9aula sta$ed in the con<u%al home in barrio ntipolo& Nabua& Camarines Sur.
!)#
On No1ember (6& "7:(& +oren2o was admitted to 4nited States citi2enship and
Certificate of Naturali2ation No. ))87="> was issued in his fa1or b$ the 4nited States
District Court& Southern District of New ?or;.
!>#
4pon the liberation of the 9hilippines b$ the merican Forces in "7:)& +oren2o was
%ranted an accrued lea1e b$ the 4. S. Na1$& to 1isit his wife and he 1isited the
9hilippines.
!8#
@e disco1ered that his wife 9aula was pre%nant and was -li1in% in. and
ha1in% an adulterous relationship with his brother& Ceferino +lorente.
!=#
On December :& "7:)& 9aula %a1e birth to a bo$ re%istered in the Office of the
Re%istrar of Nabua as -Crisolo%o +lorente&. with the certificate statin% that the child was
not le%itimate and the line for the fatherAs name was left blan;.
!7#
+oren2o refused to for%i1e 9aula and li1e with her. In fact& on Februar$ *& "7:>& the
couple drew a written a%reement to the effect that ,"/ all the famil$ allowances allotted
b$ the 4nited States Na1$ as part of +oren2oAs salar$ and all other obli%ations for
9aulaAs dail$ maintenance and support would be suspendedB ,*/ the$ would dissol1e
their marital union in accordance with <udicial proceedin%sB ,(/ the$ would ma;e a
separate a%reement re%ardin% their con<u%al propert$ ac3uired durin% their marital lifeB
and ,:/ +oren2o would not prosecute 9aula for her adulterous act since she 1oluntaril$
admitted her fault and a%reed to separate from +oren2o peacefull$. The a%reement was
si%ned b$ both +oren2o and 9aula and was witnessed b$ 9aulaAs father and
stepmother. The a%reement was notari2ed b$ Notar$ 9ublic 9edro Osabel.
!"6#
+oren2o returned to the 4nited States and on No1ember ">& "7)" filed for
di1orce with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the Count$ of San
Die%o. 9aula was represented b$ counsel& Cohn Rile$& and acti1el$ participated in the
proceedin%s. On No1ember *8& "7)"& the Superior Court of the State of California& for
the Count$ of San Die%o found all factual alle%ations to be true and issued an
interlocutor$ <ud%ment of di1orce.
!""#
On December :& "7)*& the di1orce decree became final.
!"*#
In the meantime& +oren2o returned to the 9hilippines.
On Canuar$ ">& "7)=& +oren2o married licia F. +lorente in 5anila.
!"(#
pparentl$&
licia had no ;nowled%e of the first marria%e e1en if the$ resided in the same town as
9aula& who did not oppose the marria%e or cohabitation.
!":#
From "7)= to "7=)& +oren2o and licia li1ed to%ether as husband and wife.
!")#
Their
twent$0fi1e ,*)/ $ear union produced three children& Raul& +u2 and 'e1erl$& all
surnamed +lorente.
!">#
On 5arch "(& "7="& +oren2o eDecuted a +ast Will and Testament. The will was
notari2ed b$ Notar$ 9ublic Sal1ador 5. Occiano& dul$ si%ned b$ +oren2o with attestin%
witnesses Francisco @u%o& Francisco Neibres and Tito Tra<ano. In the will& +oren2o
be3ueathed all his propert$ to licia and their three children& to witE
-,"/ I %i1e and be3ueath to m$ wife +ICI R. FORT4NO eDclusi1el$ m$
residential house and lot& located at San Francisco& Nabua& Camarines Sur&
9hilippines& includin% ++ the personal properties and other mo1ables or
belon%in%s that ma$ be found or eDistin% thereinB
-,*/ I %i1e and be3ueath eDclusi1el$ to m$ wife licia R. Fortuno and to m$
children& Raul F. +lorente& +u2 F. +lorente and 'e1erl$ F. +lorente& in e3ual
shares& all m$ real properties whatsoe1er and wheresoe1er located&
specificall$ m$ real properties located at 'aran%a$ ro0ldao& Nabua&
Camarines SurB 'aran%a$ 9alo$on& Nabua& Camarines SurB 'aran%a$ 'aras&
Sitio 9u%a& Nabua& Camarines SurB and 'aran%a$ 9alo$on& Sitio Nalilidon%&
Nabua& Camarines SurB
-,(/ I li;ewise %i1e and be3ueath eDclusi1el$ unto m$ wife licia R. Fortuno
and unto m$ children& Raul F. +lorente& +u2 F. +lorente and 'e1erl$ F.
+lorente& in e3ual shares& m$ real properties located in Fue2on Cit$
9hilippines& and co1ered b$ Transfer Certificate of Title No. "==>)*B and m$
lands in ntipolo& Ri2al& 9hilippines& co1ered b$ Transfer Certificate of Title
Nos. "*:"7> and ">)"==& both of the Re%istr$ of Deeds of the pro1ince of
Ri2al& 9hilippinesB
-,:/ That their respecti1e shares in the abo1e0mentioned properties& whether
real or personal properties& shall not be disposed of& ceded& sold and
con1e$ed to an$ other persons& but could onl$ be sold& ceded& con1e$ed and
disposed of b$ and amon% themsel1esB
-,)/ I desi%nate m$ wife +ICI R. FORT4NO to be the sole eDecutor of this
m$ +ast Will and Testament& and in her default or incapacit$ of the latter to act&
an$ of m$ children in the order of a%e& if of a%eB
-,>/ I hereb$ direct that the eDecutor named herein or her lawful substitute
should ser1ed ,sic/ without bondB
-,8/ I hereb$ re1o;e an$ and all m$ other wills& codicils& or testamentar$
dispositions heretofore eDecuted& si%ned& or published& b$ meB
-,=/ It is m$ final wish and desire that if I die& no relati1es of mine in an$
de%ree in the +lorenteAs Side should e1er bother and disturb in an$ manner
whatsoe1er m$ wife licia R. Fortunato and m$ children with respect to an$
real or personal properties I %a1e and be3ueathed respecti1el$ to each one of
them b$ 1irtue of this +ast Will and Testament..
!"8#
On December ":& "7=(& +oren2o filed with the Re%ional Trial Court& Iri%a&
Camarines Sur& a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testament
wherein +oren2o mo1ed that licia be appointed Special dministratriD of his estate.
!"=#
On Canuar$ "=& "7=:& the trial court denied the motion for the reason that the
testator +oren2o was still ali1e.
!"7#
On Canuar$ *:& "7=:& findin% that the will was dul$ eDecuted& the trial court admitted
the will to probate.
!*6#
On Cune ""& "7=)& before the proceedin%s could be terminated& +oren2o died.
!*"#
On September :& "7=)& 9aula filed with the same court a petition
!**#
for letters of
administration o1er +oren2oAs estate in her fa1or. 9aula contended ,"/ that she was
+oren2oAs sur1i1in% spouse& ,*/ that the 1arious propert$ were ac3uired durin% their
marria%e& ,(/ that +oren2oAs will disposed of all his propert$ in fa1or of licia and her
children& encroachin% on her le%itime and "G* share in the con<u%al propert$.
!*(#
On December "(& "7=)& licia filed in the testate proceedin% ,Sp. 9roc. No. IR08))/&
a petition for the issuance of letters testamentar$.
!*:#
On October ":& "7=)& without terminatin% the testate proceedin%s& the trial court
%a1e due course to 9aulaAs petition in Sp. 9roc. No. IR0===.
!*)#
On No1ember >& "( and *6& "7=)& the order was published in the newspaper -'icol
Star..
!*>#
On 5a$ "=& "7=8& the Re%ional Trial Court issued a <oint decision& thusE
-Wherefore& considerin% that this court has so found that the di1orce decree
%ranted to the late +oren2o +lorente is 1oid and inapplicable in the 9hilippines&
therefore the marria%e he contracted with licia Fortunato on Canuar$ ">&
"7)= at 5anila is li;ewise 1oid. This bein% so the petition of licia F. +lorente
for the issuance of letters testamentar$ is denied. +i;ewise& she is not entitled
to recei1e an$ share from the estate e1en if the will especiall$ said so her
relationship with +oren2o ha1in% %ained the status of paramour which is under
rt. 8(7 ,"/.
-On the other hand& the court finds the petition of 9aula Titular +lorente&
meritorious& and so declares the intrinsic disposition of the will of +oren2o
+lorente dated 5arch "(& "7=" as 1oid and declares her entitled as con<u%al
partner and entitled to one0half of their con<u%al properties& and as primar$
compulsor$ heir& 9aula T. +lorente is also entitled to one0third of the estate
and then one0third should %o to the ille%itimate children& Raul& +u2 and
'e1erl$& all surname ,sic/ +lorente& for them to partition in e3ual shares and
also entitled to the remainin% free portion in e3ual shares.
-9etitioner& 9aula +lorente is appointed le%al administrator of the estate of the
deceased& +oren2o +lorente. s such let the correspondin% letters of
administration issue in her fa1or upon her filin% a bond in the amount ,sic/ of
9"66&666.66 conditioned for her to ma;e a return to the court within three ,(/
months a true and complete in1entor$ of all %oods& chattels& ri%hts& and
credits& and estate which shall at an$ time come to her possession or to the
possession of an$ other person for her& and from the proceeds to pa$ and
dischar%e all debts& le%acies and char%es on the same& or such di1idends
thereon as shall be decreed or re3uired b$ this courtB to render a true and <ust
account of her administration to the court within one ,"/ $ear& and at an$ other
time when re3uired b$ the court and to perform all orders of this court b$ her
to be performed.
-On the other matters pra$ed for in respecti1e petitions for want of e1idence
could not be %ranted.
-SO ORDHRHD..
!*8#
In time& licia filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration of the afore3uoted
decision.
!*=#
On September ":& "7=8& the trial court denied liciaAs motion for reconsideration but
modified its earlier decision& statin% that Raul and +u2 +lorente are not children
-le%itimate or otherwise. of +oren2o since the$ were not le%all$ adopted b$ him.
!*7#
mendin% its decision of 5a$ "=& "7=8& the trial court declared 'e1erl$ +lorente as
the onl$ ille%itimate child of +oren2o& entitlin% her to one0third ,"G(/ of the estate and
one0third ,"G(/ of the free portion of the estate.
!(6#
On September *=& "7=8& respondent appealed to the Court of ppeals.
!("#
On Cul$ ("& "77)& the Court of ppeals promul%ated its decision& affirmin% with
modification the decision of the trial court in this wiseE
-W@HRHFORH& the decision appealed from is hereb$ FFIR5HD with the
5ODIFICTION that licia is declared as co0owner of whate1er properties she
and the deceased ma$ ha1e ac3uired durin% the twent$0fi1e ,*)/ $ears of
cohabitation.
-SO ORDHRHD..
!(*#
On u%ust *)& "77)& petitioner filed with the Court of ppeals a motion for
reconsideration of the decision.
!((#
On 5arch *"& "77>& the Court of ppeals&
!(:#
denied the motion for lac; of merit.
@ence& this petition.
!()#
T%e "&&)e
Strippin% the petition of its le%alese and sortin% throu%h the 1arious ar%uments
raised&
!(>#
the issue is simple. Who are entitled to inherit from the late +oren2o N.
+lorenteI
We do not a%ree with the decision of the Court of ppeals. We remand the case to
the trial court for rulin% on the intrinsic 1alidit$ of the will of the deceased.
T%e A**+,'ab+e La-
The fact that the late +oren2o N. +lorente became an merican citi2en lon% before
and at the time ofE ,"/ his di1orce from 9aulaB ,*/ marria%e to liciaB ,(/ eDecution of his
willB and ,:/ death& is dul$ established& admitted and undisputed.
Thus& as a rule&
s arisin% from these incidents are necessaril$ %o1erned b$ forei%n law.
The Ci1il Code clearl$ pro1idesE
-rt. "). +aws relatin% to famil$ ri%hts and duties& or to the status& condition
and le%al capacit$ of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines&
e1en thou%h li1in% abroad.
-rt. ">. Real propert$ as well as personal propert$ is sub<ect to the law of the
countr$ where it is situated.
-@owe1er& intestate and testamentar$ succession& both with respect to the
order of succession and to the amount of successional ri%hts and to the
intrinsic 1alidit$ of testamentar$ pro1isions& shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration&
whate1er ma$ be the nature of the propert$ and re%ardless of the countr$
wherein said propert$ ma$ be found.. ,emphasis ours/
True& forei%n laws do not pro1e themsel1es in our <urisdiction and our courts are not
authori2ed to ta;e <udicial notice of them. +i;e an$ other fact& the$ must be alle%ed and
pro1ed.
!(8#
While the substance of the forei%n law was pleaded& the Court of ppeals did not
admit the forei%n law. The Court of ppeals and the trial court called to the fore
the renvoi doctrine& where the case was -referred bac;. to the law of the decedentAs
domicile& in this case& 9hilippine law.
We note that while the trial court stated that the law of New ?or; was not sufficientl$
pro1en& in the same breath it made the cate%orical& albeit e3uall$ unpro1en statement
that -merican law follows the Jdomiciliar$ theor$A hence& 9hilippine law applies when
determinin% the 1alidit$ of +oren2oAs will.
!(=#
F,r&(& there is no such thin% as one merican law. The Knational lawK indicated in
rticle "> of the Ci1il Code cannot possibl$ appl$ to %eneral merican law. There is no
such law %o1ernin% the 1alidit$ of testamentar$ pro1isions in the 4nited States. Hach
State of the union has its own law applicable to its citi2ens and in force onl$ within the
State. It can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the decedent
was a resident.
!(7#
Se'o!& there is no showin% that the application of the renvoi doctrine
is called for or re3uired b$ New ?or; State law.
The trial court held that the will was intrinsicall$ in1alid since it contained
dispositions in fa1or of lice& who in the trial courtAs opinion was a mere paramour. The
trial court threw the will out& lea1in% lice& and her two children& Raul and +u2& with
nothin%.
The Court of ppeals also disre%arded the will. It declared lice entitled to one half
,"G*/ of whate1er propert$ she and +oren2o ac3uired durin% their cohabitation& appl$in%
rticle ":: of the Ci1il Code of the 9hilippines.
The hast$ application of 9hilippine law and the complete disre%ard of the will&
alread$ probated as dul$ eDecuted in accordance with the formalities of 9hilippine law&
is fatal& especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining.
.a+,!,(/ o0 (%e Fore,1 #,vor'e
In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.
!:6#
we held that owin% to the nationalit$ principle embodied
in rticle ") of the Ci1il Code& onl$ 9hilippine nationals are co1ered b$ the polic$ a%ainst
absolute di1orces& the same bein% considered contrar$ to our concept of public polic$
and moralit$. In the same case& the Court ruled that aliens ma$ obtain di1orces abroad&
pro1ided the$ are 1alid accordin% to their national law.
Citin% this landmar; case& the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals&
!:"#
that once
pro1en that respondent was no lon%er a Filipino citi2en when he obtained the di1orce
from petitioner& the rulin% in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could
-1er$ well lose her ri%ht to inherit. from him.
In Pilapil v. Ibay-omera&
!:*#
we reco%ni2ed the di1orce obtained b$ the respondent in
his countr$& the Federal Republic of Lerman$. There& we stated that di1orce and its
le%al effects ma$ be reco%ni2ed in the 9hilippines insofar as respondent is concerned in
1iew of the nationalit$ principle in our ci1il law on the status of persons.
For failin% to appl$ these doctrines& the decision of the Court of ppeals must be
re1ersed.
!:(#
We hold that the di1orce obtained b$ +oren2o @. +lorente from his first wife
9aula was 1alid and reco%ni2ed in this <urisdiction as a matter of comit$. Now& the
effects of this di1orce ,as to the succession to the estate of the decedent/ are matters
best left to the determination of the trial court.
.a+,!,(/ o0 (%e 2,++
The Ci1il Code pro1idesE
-rt. "8. The forms and solemnities of contracts& wills& and other public
instruments shall be %o1erned b$ the laws of the country in which they are
executed.
-When the acts referred to are eDecuted before the diplomatic or consular
officials of the Republic of the 9hilippines in a forei%n countr$& the solemnities
established b$ 9hilippine laws shall be obser1ed in their eDecution..
,un!erscorin" ours/
The clear intent of +oren2o to be3ueath his propert$ to his second wife and children
b$ her is %larin%l$ shown in the will he eDecuted. We do not wish to frustrate his wishes&
since he was a forei%ner& not co1ered b$ our laws on -famil$ ri%hts and duties& status&
condition and le%al capacit$..
!::#
Whether the will is intrinsicall$ 1alid and who shall inherit from +oren2o are issues
best pro1ed b$ forei%n law which must be pleaded and pro1ed. Whether the will was
eDecuted in accordance with the formalities re3uired is answered b$ referrin% to
9hilippine law. In fact& the will was dul$ probated.
s a %uide howe1er& the trial court should note that whate1er public polic$ or %ood
customs ma$ be in1ol1ed in our s$stem of le%itimes& Con%ress did not intend to eDtend
the same to the succession of forei%n nationals. Con%ress specificall$ left the amount
of successional ri%hts to the decedentMs national law.
!:)#
@a1in% thus ruled& we find it unnecessar$ to pass upon the other issues raised.
T%e Fa++o
23EREFORE& the petition is LRNTHD. The decision of the Court of ppeals in
C0L. R. S9 No. "8::> promul%ated on Cul$ ("& "77) is SHT SIDH.
In lieu thereof& the Court RHVHRSHS the decision of the Re%ional Trial Court and
RHCOLNINHS as V+ID the decree of di1orce %ranted in fa1or of the deceased
+oren2o N. +lorente b$ the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
Count$ of San Die%o& made final on December :& "7)*.
Further& the Court RH5NDS the cases to the court of ori%in for determination of
the intrinsic 1alidit$ of +oren2o N. +lorenteAs will and determination of the partiesA
successional ri%hts allowin% proof of forei%n law with instructions that the trial court shall
proceed with all deliberate dispatch to settle the estate of the deceased within the
framewor; of the Rules of Court.
No costs.
SO OR#ERE#.