QUITA VS Court of Appeals

FACTS:

The petitioner Fe D. Quita and decedent Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipino citizens, were
married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941, however they didn't have any children.
Fe sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California, USA and it was granted in
July 3, 1954. Both subsequently married other people after the divorce.

On April 16, 1972, Arturo died leaving no will. On Oct. 7, 1987, the petitioner moved
for immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent and the distribution of his estate.
The trial court disregarded the divorce between the petitioner and the decedent and
expressed that their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo. On Nov. 27, 1987,
the petitioner and the decedent's brother, Ruperto were declared intestate heirs.

A motion of consideration was filed. On Feb. 15, 1988, partial reconsideration was
granted only to the legitimate children of the decedent. His wife however was not
declared heir on the grounds that their marriage was void for it was celebrated during
the existence of the marriage of the decedent with the petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner has a right to the estate of the decedent as his surviving
spouse.

HELD:

No. The divorce of the petitioner and decedent was valid since at the time it was
obtained, the petitioner was already considered an alien. According to the ruling in the
Van Dorn case, aliens may obtain divorce abroad, which may be recognized in the
Philippines provided they are valid according to their national law. Since the
petitioner was already an alien at the time of divorce, this ruling may be applied and
consequently, petitioner loses her right to inherit from Arturo.