QUITA vs.

CA
G.R. No. 124862
December 22, 1998

FACTS

Petitioner Fe Quita and private respondent Blandina Dandan are the women in the life of
decedent Arturo Padlan.

Arturo, a Filipino citizen married Fe, also a Filipino citizen, in the Philippines on May 18,
1941. Unfortunately, the couple was not blessed with any children. Subsequently, Arturo and Fe’s
marriage was terminated by virtue of a divorce decree granted by the San Francisco California
Court on July 23 1954.

Arturo died intestate on April 16, 1972. Private respondent Blandina claiming to be the
surviving spouse prayed for the appointment of her lawyer as the administrator of the estate of the
deceased instead of one Lino Javier Inciong who also filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City for the issuance of letters of administration concerning the estate of Arturo in favor
of the Philippine Trust Company 1.

It appears that Fe is likewise interested in the estate of Arturo, she having moved for the
immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent and the distribution of his estate despite the fact of
the execution of the divorce decree in San Francisco California in 1954.

Invoking the jurisprudential doctrine held by the Court in Tenchavez vs. Escano which
provides that a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of
the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386)2 was not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction,
the RTC disregarded the divorce between Fe and Arturo. Consequently, it expressed the view that
their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972.

Blandina assigned as error that the RTC rendered its decision without hearing contrary to
the express provision of Par. 1 § 1, Rule 90, of the Rules of Court which states that:

“ x x x 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.”

Respondent appellate court found this ground alone sufficient to sustain the appeal; hence,
on September 11, 1995 it declared null and void the November 27, 1987 decision and February

1
§ 4, RULE 79, RULES OF COURT. Opposition to petition for administration. – Any interested person may, by filing a
written opposition, contest the petition on the ground of incompetency of the person for whom letters are prayed
therein, or on the ground of the contestant’s own right to the administration, and may pray that letters issue to
himself, or to any competent person or persons named in the opposition.
2
ARTICLE 15, CIVIL CODE. – 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.
15, 1988 order of the trial court, and directed the remand of the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.

ISSUE

Is there a controversy as to who is the legitimate surviving spouse of Arturo?

HELD

Yes. Blandina stressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of the
ruling in Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. that 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 fact, Blandina even furnished the Court with the transcript of stenographic
notes taken on May 5, 1995 during the hearing for the reconstitution of the original of a certain
transfer certificate title as well as the issuance of new owner's duplicate copy thereof before another
trial court. When asked whether she was an American citizen petitioner answered that she was
since 1954.

Significantly, the decree of divorce of petitioner and Arturo was obtained in the same year.
Petitioner however did not bother to file a reply memorandum to erase the uncertainty about her
citizenship at the time of their divorce, a factual issue requiring hearings to be conducted by the
trial court. Consequently, respondent appellate court did not err in ordering the case returned to
the trial court for further proceedings.

The Court emphasized however that the question to be determined by the trial court should
be limited only to the right of Fe to inherit from Arturo as his surviving spouse. Blandina's claim
to heirship was already resolved by the trial court. She and Arturo were married on April 22, 1947
while the prior marriage of Fe and Arturo was subsisting thereby resulting in a bigamous marriage
considered void from the beginning under Arts. 80 and 83 of the Civil Code. Consequently, she is
not a surviving spouse that can inherit from him as this status presupposes a legitimate relationship.