LLORENTE VS. CA March 10, 1927 Sept. 30, 1957: Lorenzo Llorente, US Navy serviceman Feb.

eb. 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 fathers name blank Feb. 2, 1946 Lorenzo & Paula signed written agreement: 1. suspend all US Navy allowances allotted for Paulas daily maintenance & support 2. dissolve marital union in accordance w/judicial proceedings 3. separate agreement re conjugal prop acquired during marriage 4. Lorenzo wont prosecute Paula for adultery since she voluntarily admitted fault & agreed to separate peacefully *witnessed by Paulas 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 latters knowledge of his first marriage. Paula didnt 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 c. 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 its duly executed Jun. 11, 1985 Lorenzo died before proceedings were terminated Sept. 4, 1985 Paula filed petition for letters of administration over Lorenzos estate in her favor: a) shes the surviving spouse b) various prop

acquired during their marriage c) Lorenzos will encroached on her legitime & 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. Alicias petition denied & no rt. To receive share shes 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 Alicias motion denied & modified decision stating first 2 kids were not legit or otherwise since he didnt 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 Lorenzos will w/proof of foreign law 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 its 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 hes 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. IbaySomera). 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/aliens 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 TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A 78118870.doc 08.02.04 1

 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 Graces 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 Redericks 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 documents official/public by official publication or copy thereof attested by officer w/legal custody of document and if records 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 Graces 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, cant 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. 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 cant presume its 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. YASIN vs. JUDGE, SHARIA 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 Sharia Court: its petition for change of name thus should include residence of petitioner, name to be adopted & all names by which shes been known (ROC Rule 103, Sec. 2(a) & 3). MFR denied. Change of name coz shell be resuming use of her surname. Use of surname is governed by law & it cant 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. 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 its 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 husbands surname during marriage (Art. 370), after annulment (Art. 371), after death (Art. 373) is permissive & not obligatory. 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 + husbands surname, maiden first name + husbands surname, Mrs. Husbands full name. Doesnt say that women are obliged to use husbands name. Its 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 partys married to another. TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A 78118870.doc 08.02.04 2

6. No need judicial authority to use husbands name upon marriage and resumption of use of maiden name upon death/annulment. Its a right decreed by law. Its automatic. Especially in this case, since former husbands married already so shes obliged to use her maiden name. ROMERO CONCURRING: Equality of men & women in choosing name to employ VITUG CONCURRING: mandatory to use husbands surname upon marriage. Committee turned down proposal to allow married woman to use maiden name & surname.

TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A 78118870.doc 08.02.04 3