• • • • • • •

• • • • • •

LLORENTE VS. CA March 10, 1927 – Sept. 30, 1957: Lorenzo Llorente, US Navy serviceman Feb. 22, 1937 – married Paula Llorente Before Pacific War outbreak – Lorenzo left for US, Paula left in conjugal home in Camarines Sur Nov. 30, 1943 – Lorenzo became naturalized US citizen 1945 RP liberation – Lorenzo went home to visit wife & learned she was pregnant by his bro, Ceferino. And they were having an adulterous relationship Dec. 4, 1945 – Paula gave birth to Crisologo Llorente, declared legit but father’s name blank Feb. 2, 1946 – Lorenzo & Paula signed written agreement: 1. suspend all US Navy allowances allotted for Paula’s daily maintenance & support 2. dissolve marital union in accordance w/judicial proceedings 3. separate agreement re conjugal prop acquired during marriage 4. Lorenzo won’t prosecute Paula for adultery since she voluntarily admitted fault & agreed to separate peacefully *witnessed by Paula’s dad & stepmom & notarized Nov. 16, 1951 – Lorenzo back in US & filed for divorce with Calif. Superior Court. Paula represented by counsel John Riley Nov. 27, 1951 – Interlocutory judgment of divorce issued Dec. 4, 1952 – divorce decree became final Jan. 16, 1958 – Lorenzo back in RP married Alicia in Manila w/o latter’s knowledge of his first marriage. Paula didn’t oppose 1958 – 1985 – Lorenzo & Alicia lived together as husband & wife & had 3 kids Mar. 13, 1981 – Lorenzo executed Last Will & Testament duly notarized & witnessed. Terms: 1. Alicia will be/get: a. Camarines Sur residential house & lot w/all personal prop & movables or belongings b. Sole executor of Last Will & Testament & in her default/incapacity, 3 children in order of age. She should serve w/o bond. 2. Alicia & 3 kids will get/be: a. equal shares of all real properties whatsoever & wheresoever located b. equal shares of real properties in QC & Antipolo

• • • • •

• •

• • •

shares will not be disposed of, ceded (surrendered), & conveyed to others but can only be sold, ceded & conveyed by & among themselves 3. previous wills, testaments, codicils are revoked 4. no other relatives (Llorente side) can disturb/bother in any manner Alicia & kids wrt real/personal props Dec. 14, 1983 – Lorenzo filed petition for probate & allowance of will wherein he appointed Alicia as Special Administratrix of estate Jan. 18, 1984 – denied coz he was still alive Jan. 24, 1984 – admitted will to probate since it’s duly executed Jun. 11, 1985 – Lorenzo died before proceedings were terminated Sept. 4, 1985 – Paula filed petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor: a) she’s the surviving spouse b) various prop acquired during their marriage c) Lorenzo’s will encroached on her legitime & ½ share in conjugal prop Dec. 13, 1985 – Alicia petitioned for issuance of letters testamentary May 18, 1987 – RTC decision: 1. Lorenzo – Paula divorce is void since inapplicable in RP 2. Lorenzo – Alicia marriage void 3. Alicia’s petition denied & no rt. To receive share she’s merely a paramour 4. Will is void 5. Paula – entitled to one half of conjugal prop 6. Paula – primary compulsory heir thus entitled to 1/3 of estate & 1/3 to go to kids for equal sharing & entitled to remaining free portion in equal shares 7. Paula – legal administrator of estate and issued letters of administration & file bond of P100k Alicia filed MFR Sept. 14, 1987 – Alicia’s motion denied & modified decision stating first 2 kids were not legit or otherwise since he didn’t legally adopt them. Only youngest is illegit & entitled to 1/3 of estate & 1/3 of free portion July 31, 1995 – CA decision: modified: Alicia co-owner of prop acquired during cohabitation. Paula MFR, denied.


ISSUE: WON divorce granted to Lorenzo in CA is valid thus affecting validity of her marriage to Alicia & validity of his will. HELD: Petition granted. Divorce recognized & valid. Remanded to RTC to determine validity of Lorenzo’s will w/proof of foreign law
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A 4689979.doc 08.02.04 1

RATIO: 1. US law, specifically laws of the state where Lorenzo was a resident, is applicable to Lorenzo. He was a US citizen prior to divorce, marriage to Alicia, execution of will & death. RP laws on family rights & duties, status, condition, leg. Capacity applicable only to RP citizens (CC 15). Real & personal prop governed by law of country where it’s situated except for intestate & testamentary succession, governed by national law of person whose succession is under consideration (CC 16). No proof that NY follows domiciliary theory (a person is governed by laws of country where he’s staying). 2. Divorce is valid. Only RP nationals are covered by policy against absolute divorces. Aliens can obtain divorces abroad as long as valid under their national law (Van Dorn vs. Romillo). When a person is no longer a Filipino citizen when divorce was obtained, Van Dorn is applicable & former spouse loses right to inherit (Quita vs. CA). Divorce obtained in Germany is effective and valid since only nationals are governed by law on status & persons (Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera). 3. Only formalities of contracts executed in RP are governed by our law (CC 17). Will was duly probated. Validity of contract, who shall inherit will still be determined by a foreigner/alien’s country of origin. Present proof re foreign law to determine its validity. GRACE GARICA a.k.a. GRACE GARCIA-RECIO vs. REDERICK RECIO Mar. 1, 1987 – Rederick, Filipino, married Editha Samson, an Australian citizen in Malabon. Lived in Australia • May 18, 1989 – Australian family court issued decree of divorce • June 26, 1992 – Rederick became Australian citizen • Jan. 12, 1994 – Grace, Filipina, & Rederick were married in Cabanatuan. Rederick declared single & Filipino • Oct. 22, 1995 – Grace & Rederick lived separately w/o judicial dissolution of marriage • May 16, 1996 – Conjugal assets divided accdng to Statutory Declaration secured in Australia • Mar. 3, 1998 – Grace filed Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on ground of bigamy due to previous marriage to Editha. Says she only learned about it in Nov., 97 but Rederick says he told her in 1993 prior to marriage. • Rederick: 1. first marriage validly dissolved thus legally capacitated to remarry •

2. he already obtained divorce decree in Australia due to irretrievable breaking down of marriage 3. dismiss Grace’s petition for no cause of action RTC: Grace-Rederick marriage dissolved by Australian court. Divorce is valid & recognized. Nothing to dissolve.

ISSUES: 1. WON divorce bet Editha & Rederick was proven 2. WON Rederick was legally capacitated to marry Grace HELD: remanded to lower court to admit evidence to prove Rederick’s capacity to marry Grace, based on foreign law and if not proven, declare such marriage void due to bigamy. RATIO: 1. Divorce obtained validly by alien spouse capacitates Filipino to remarry (FC 26). Presenting only the divorce decree is insufficient proof that one is legally capacitated to marry again. One needs to prove divorce as a fact & prove its conformity to foreign law which issued decree (Van Dorn). There is still need to prove authenticity & due execution of Australian divorce decree. It needs to be presented & admitted as evidence first before it can be given presumptive evidentiary value. Prove foreign document’s official/public by official publication or copy thereof attested by officer w/legal custody of document and if record’s kept outside of RP copy should be accompanied by certificate issued by & stamped w/seal of RP diplomat/consul stationed in the foreign country (ROC rule 132, sec. 24 & 25). All these requisites are needed to prove validity of divorce obtained by Rederick for first marriage. But since Grace’s camp objected not to admissibility of decree but to the fact that it was not registered w/Local Civil Registry (in accordance w/FC Art. 11 & 52), RTC declared it as admissible. FC articles need not be complied with since Rederick is already an Australian citizen not bound by RP laws. Burden to prove validity of decree lies with party who alleges its existence as necessary in prosecution or defense of action, meaning, w/Rederick since he raised it as a defense. Needs to prove this, can’t assume Court to know this. 2. Though divorce was proven, we further need to prove whether it was absolute or limited. Limited sometimes restricts parties’ rt to remarry.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A 4689979.doc 08.02.04 2

Rederick presented only an interlocutory decree w/c means conditional/provisional & similar to legal sep w/c may be absolute after prescribed period. Aussie law has this provision: a party who marries before divorce becomes absolute commits bigamy. Possible that Rederick was not yet legally capacitated to marry. We can’t presume it’s valid since no proof for effects of decree has been shown. No need to present decree of divorce, certificate of legal capacity should have been sufficient as decreed by FC Art. 21.

Wife returns/renounces her dower or pay other lawful consideration for her release

6. By tafwid (right to repudiate) • Husband delegates wife right to effect talaq at time of marriage celeb or anytime after that. She may repudiate marriage. 7. By faskh (judicial decree); grounds: • Husband’s neglect/failure to provide support for at least 6 mos. • Husband convicted by final judgment sentenced to imprisonment for at least 1 year • Husband fails to perform marital oblig for 6 mos. W/o reasonable cause • Husband impotent • Husband insane or has incurable disease injurious to continuance of marriage • Husband’s unusual cruelty (habitual assault, husband makes wife’s life miserable by cruel conduct, associates w/persons of ill-repute, leads infamous life, forces wife to live immoral life, compels her to dispose exclusive prop or prevents her from exercising leg. Rights over it, obstructs observance of religious practices, unjust/inequitable treatment) • Any other cause recognized by Muslim law Granted only after exhaustion of all possible means of reconciliation Effects of 1 & 7 1. severe marriage bond 2. spouses may contract another marriage 3. lose mutual rights of inheritance 4. custody of children based on art. 78 5. wife can recover who dower from husband if marriage has been consummated or ½ if prior to consummation 6. husband will still have oblig to support 7. conjugal partnership if stipulated in marriage settlement, will be dissolved & liquidated Effects of other types: dissolution effect of 1 & 7 will apply after complying with requirements of Islamic law
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A 4689979.doc 08.02.04 3

MUSLIM DIVORCE (PD 1083) Types of Divorce 1. By Talaq (repudiation) • Husband’s single repudiation (denial) of wife during non-menstrual period wherein he abstained from having carnal relation w/her. Count repudiations in one period as one. Irrevocable after prescribed idda expires. • When husband repudiates wife for first/second time, he may take her back w/in prescribed idda by resumption of cohabitation, otherwise, repudiation’s irrevocable. 2. By ila (vow of continence) • Husband vows to abstain from any carnal relations w/wife & keeps promise for not less than 4 mos., wife may be granted divorce decree (w/due notice & hearing) 3. By Zihar (injurious assanilation) • Husband injuriously assimilates wife to any of his relatives w/in prohibited decrees of marriage, he’s required to perform prescribed expiation (penance/compensation). If he fails/refuses to do so, regular talaq may be pronounced. 4. By li’an (imprecation) • Husband accuses wife of adultery, perpetual divorce may be granted after due hearing & parties perform prescribed acts of imprecation 5. By khul’ (redemption)

Idda: period of waiting prescribed for woman whose marriage has been dissolved by death/divorce. Need to complete this to enable her to contract new marriage. 1. death: 4 mos 10 days 2. divorce: 3 monthly courses 3. pregnant woman: after delivery 4. husband dies while wife observes idda for divorce, another idda for death should be observed • • • • • YASIN vs. JUDGE, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT Hatima Yasin formerly married to Hadji Iris Yasin, both Muslim Filipinos under Muslim rites & customs Mar. 13, 1984 – Mindanao Islamic Center Foundation, Inc. granted decree of divorce Hadji now married to another woman Hatima, by virtue of PD 1083 Art. 143, par. 1(c) & CC Art. 371 (2) requests that she be allowed to resume using her maiden name, Hatima Centi y Saul Shari’a Court: it’s petition for change of name thus should include residence of petitioner, name to be adopted & all names by which she’s been known (ROC Rule 103, Sec. 2(a) & 3). MFR denied. Change of name coz she’ll be resuming use of her surname. Use of surname is governed by law & it can’t be changed w/o judicial authority. A change of name is a privilege & not a matter of right which will only be effected after showing proper/compelling reason.

Only legal sep decrees that name employed prior to declaration of legal sep should still be used (Art. 372). 4. Possible names to be used by married woman: first name + last name + husband’s surname, maiden first name + husband’s surname, Mrs. Husband’s full name. Doesn’t say that women are obliged to use husband’s name. It’s only an option. 5. Annulment: if guilty, resume use of maiden name. If not, resume maiden name or continue using married name unless court decrees otherwise or either party’s married to another. 6. No need judicial authority to use husband’s name upon marriage and resumption of use of maiden name upon death/annulment. It’s a right decreed by law. It’s automatic. Especially in this case, since former husband’s married already so she’s obliged to use her maiden name. ROMERO CONCURRING: Equality of men & women in choosing name to employ VITUG CONCURRING: mandatory to use husband’s surname upon marriage. Committee turned down proposal to allow married woman to use maiden name & surname.

ISSUE: WON petition for resumption of maiden name & surname is also petition for change of name HELD: No. Unnecessary proceeding. Decision set aside. Petition granted. RATIO: 1. True & real name of person is one entered in civil register. Other names are unofficial. Thus it’s the only name that can be changed. (Ng yao Siong vs. Republic) 2. Muslim Law: divorce by judicial decree (Art. 45) severs marriage & bond & parties can remarry (Art. 54). It becomes irrevocable after idda of 3 monthly courses has been observed (Art. 57). Other existing RP laws applied suppletorily if not inconsistent w/Muslim law (Art. 187). 3. CC: use of husband’s surname during marriage (Art. 370), after annulment (Art. 371), after death (Art. 373) is permissive & not obligatory.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A 4689979.doc 08.02.04 4