PRIL - #042

QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS (1968)

J. Bellosillo

Doctrine: Once one of the spouses is proven to be an alien at the time the divorce is obtained, Van Dorn will apply
and the divorce will be binding on the Filipino spouse.

Facts:
Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941. On July 23,
1954, Fe obtained a divorce decree in California, U.S.A. She thereafter married two other times while still in the
States.
On April 16, 1972, Arturo died leaving no will. Blandina Dandan claimed to be his surviving spouse and
her six children, all surnamed Padlan, as surviving children of Arturo. They submitted certified copies of the final
judgment of divorce between Fe and Arturo. Likewise they showed proofs of recognition of five children by Arturo
as his legitimate children and of the sixth as a recognized illegitimate child.

Issue: Whether it was Fe or Blandina who should be considered as Arturo’s surviving spouse and heir.

Held:
1. The Court noted the statement of petitioner that the decedent Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained
legally married to her in spite of the divorce they obtained. Reading between the lines, the implication is
that petitioner was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her divorce from Arturo. This should have
prompted the trial court to conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship.
a. The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the truth of the matters in issue with the aid of documentary
and testimonial evidence as well as the arguments of the parties either supporting or opposing the
evidence. Instead, the lower court perfunctorily settled her claim in her favor by merely applying the
ruling in Tenchavez v. Escaño.According the Court, the implication of this statement is that petitioner
was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her divorce from Arturo.
2. The Court added that regardless of the fact that petitioner and Arturo were both Filipinos when they were
married, what is material is the issue of whether petitioner is still a Filipino when their divorce was
decreed. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, the doctrine
Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. would apply and petitioner could not be considered as Arturo’s surviving spouse
and heir to his estate.
3. The SC also emphasized that the question to be determined by the trial court should be limited only to the
right of petitioner to inherit from Arturo as his surviving spouse. Private respondent (Dandan)’s claim to
heirship was already resolved by the trial court. She and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the
prior marriage of petitioner 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.
4. Dispositive: Case was remanded for the determination of Quita as an heir of the decedent.

Digested by: Cielo (A2015)