Title:

MEROPE ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE CATALAN vs. LOUELLA A. CATALAN-LEE, G. R. No.

183622, February 8, 2012
FACTS
: Deceased Orlando B. Catalan is a naturalized American citizen. After he obtained a US divorce
for his first marriage withFelicitas Amor, he subsequently contracted a second marriage with
herein petitioner Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan.Felicitas, thereafter, filed a bigamy case
against Merope for having contracted a second marriage with her husband despite anexisting
marriage to one Eusebio Bristol.Sometime in 1998, the RTC acquitted Merope of bigamy . It
ruled that since the deceased was a divorced American citizen,and since that divorce was
not recognized under the Philippine jurisdiction, the marriage between him and petitioner was
not valid.Furthermore, it found out that petitioner had never been married to Eusebio
Bristol.Sometime in 2004, Orlando died inestate in the Philippines. Thus, on February 28, 2005,
petitioner filed a petition for the.Pending said petition, herein respondent, one of the children of
Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar petition. The two caseswere subsequently
consolidated.Respondent questioned the legal standing of the petitioner to file such an action.
She alleged that Merope cannot beconsidered as an interested person to qualified to file such
action since she was never considered married to the deceased by virtue of the decision of the
RTC on the bigamy case.On June 26, 2006, the trial court dismissed the petition filed by
petitioner and granted that of the respondent. It held that themarriage between petitioner and
Eusebio Bristol was valid and subsisting when she married Orlando, and went on to say that
petitioner was not an interested party to file such petition.Hence, the petitioner went to the CA
armed with a marriage certificate of her marriage with Orlando. However, the CAdismissed the
petition for certiorari she filed and ruled that a marriage certificate, like any public document, is
only a prima facieevidence of facts stated therein. In addition the CA stated that the deduction
of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Merope, being the second wife of the deceased Orlando, has a legal
standing on filing a petition for the issuance of letters of administration for her appointment as
administratrix of the intestate estate of the latter notwithstanding thededuction of the trial court
that the acquittal of the petitioner in the said case negates the validity of her subsequent marriage
withOrlando B. Catalan has not been disproved by her.
HELD:
Owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine
nationals are covered by thepolicy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary
to our concept of public policy and morality. However,aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law, as
a matter of comity; provided further that before a foreign judgment is given presumptive
evidentiary value, thedocument must first be presented and admitted in evidence. A divorce
obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decreeitself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is
the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or record of an actof an official body
or tribunal of a foreign country.Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a
writing or document may be proven as a public or officialrecord of a foreign country by either
(1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custodyof the
document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a
certificate issued by theproper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service

stationed in the foreign country in which the record is keptand (b) authenticated by the seal of his
office.
The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in
the prosecution or defense of an action.
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.
Like anyother facts, they must be alleged and proved. The power of judicial notice must be
exercised with caution, and everyreasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the
negativeIn this case, the US divorce obtained by Orlando, a naturalized American citizen, for his
marriage with Felicitas maybe recognized in the Philippines.
It appears that the trial court no longer required petitioner to prove the validity of Orlandos
divorce under the laws of
theUnited States and the marriage between petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to
remand the proceedings to the trialcourt
for further reception of evidence to establish the fact of divorce.Should petitioner prove the
validity of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, she has the preferential right to be issued
theletters of administration over the estate. Otherwise, letters of administration may be issued to
respondent, who is undisputedly thedaughter or next of kin of the deceased.