PAULA T. LLORENTE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALICIA F.

LLORENTE, respondents.
D E C I S I O NPARDO, J.: [G.R. No. 124371. November 23, 2000]
The Case
The case raises a conflict of laws issue.
What is before us is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appealsi[1] modifying
that of the Regional Trial Court, Camarines Sur, Branch 35, Iriga Cityii[2] declaring
respondent Alicia F. Llorente (herinafter referred to as Alicia), as co-owners of
whatever property she and the deceased Lorenzo N. Llorente (hereinafter referred to as
Lorenzo) may have acquired during the twenty-five (25) years that they lived
together as husband and wife.
The Facts
The deceased Lorenzo N. Llorente was an enlisted serviceman of the United States
Navy from March 10, 1927 to September 30, 1957.iii[3]
On February 22, 1937, Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente (hereinafter referred to as
Paula) were married before a parish priest, Roman Catholic Church, in Nabua,
Camarines Sur.iv[4]
Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo departed for the United States and
Paula stayed in the conjugal home in barrio Antipolo, Nabua, Camarines Sur.v[5]
On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States citizenship and
Certificate of Naturalization No. 5579816 was issued in his favor by the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.vi[6]
Upon the liberation of the Philippines by the American Forces in 1945, Lorenzo was
granted an accrued leave by the U. S. Navy, to visit his wife and he visited the
Philippines.vii[7] He discovered that his wife Paula was pregnant and was living in
and having an adulterous relationship with his brother, Ceferino Llorente.viii[8]
On December 4, 1945, Paula gave birth to a boy registered in the Office of the
Registrar of Nabua as Crisologo Llorente, with the certificate stating that the child
was not legitimate and the line for the fathers name was left blank.ix[9]

Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her. In fact, on February 2, 1946, the
couple drew a written agreement to the effect that (1) all the family allowances allotted
by the United States Navy as part of Lorenzos salary and all other obligations for
Paulas daily maintenance and support would be suspended; (2) they would dissolve
their marital union in accordance with judicial proceedings; (3) they would make a
separate agreement regarding their conjugal property acquired during their marital life;
and (4) Lorenzo would not prosecute Paula for her adulterous act since she voluntarily
admitted her fault and agreed to separate from Lorenzo peacefully. The agreement was
signed by both Lorenzo and Paula and was witnessed by Paulas father and stepmother.
The agreement was notarized by Notary Public Pedro Osabel.x[10]
Lorenzo returned to the United States and on November 16, 1951 filed for divorce
with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego.
Paula was represented by counsel, John Riley, and actively participated in the
proceedings. On November 27, 1951, the Superior Court of the State of California, for
the County of San Diego found all factual allegations to be true and issued an
interlocutory judgment of divorce.xi[11]
On December 4, 1952, the divorce decree became final.xii[12]
In the meantime, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines.
On January 16, 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila.xiii[13] Apparently,
Alicia had no knowledge of the first marriage even if they resided in the same town as
Paula, who did not oppose the marriage or cohabitation.xiv[14]
From 1958 to 1985, Lorenzo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife.xv[15] Their
twenty-five (25) year union produced three children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all
surnamed Llorente.xvi[16]
On March 13, 1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament. The will was
notarized by Notary Public Salvador M. Occiano, duly signed by Lorenzo with
attesting witnesses Francisco Hugo, Francisco Neibres and Tito Trajano. In the will,
Lorenzo bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children, to wit:
(1) I give and bequeath to my wife ALICIA R. FORTUNO exclusively my residential
house and lot, located at San Francisco, Nabua, Camarines Sur, Philippines, including
ALL the personal properties and other movables or belongings that may be found or
existing therein;

(2) I give and bequeath exclusively to my wife Alicia R. Fortuno and to my children,
Raul F. Llorente, Luz F. Llorente and Beverly F. Llorente, in equal shares, all my real
properties whatsoever and wheresoever located, specifically my real properties located
at Barangay Aro-Aldao, Nabua, Camarines Sur; Barangay Paloyon, Nabua, Camarines
Sur; Barangay Baras, Sitio Puga, Nabua, Camarines Sur; and Barangay Paloyon, Sitio
Nalilidong, Nabua, Camarines Sur;

On January 18, 1984, the trial court denied the motion for the reason that the testator
Lorenzo was still alive.xix[19]
On January 24, 1984, finding that the will was duly executed, the trial court admitted
the will to probate.xx[20]
On June 11, 1985, before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died.xxi[21]

(3) I likewise give and bequeath exclusively unto my wife Alicia R. Fortuno and unto
my children, Raul F. Llorente, Luz F. Llorente and Beverly F. Llorente, in equal
shares, my real properties located in Quezon City Philippines, and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 188652; and my lands in Antipolo, Rizal, Philippines, covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 124196 and 165188, both of the Registry of Deeds
of the province of Rizal, Philippines;
(4) That their respective shares in the above-mentioned properties, whether real or
personal properties, shall not be disposed of, ceded, sold and conveyed to any other
persons, but could only be sold, ceded, conveyed and disposed of by and among
themselves;
(5) I designate my wife ALICIA R. FORTUNO to be the sole executor of this my Last
Will and Testament, and in her default or incapacity of the latter to act, any of my
children in the order of age, if of age;
(6) I hereby direct that the executor named herein or her lawful substitute should
served (sic) without bond;
(7) I hereby revoke any and all my other wills, codicils, or testamentary dispositions
heretofore executed, signed, or published, by me;
(8) It is my final wish and desire that if I die, no relatives of mine in any degree in the
Llorentes Side should ever bother and disturb in any manner whatsoever my wife
Alicia R. Fortunato and my children with respect to any real or personal properties I
gave and bequeathed respectively to each one of them by virtue of this Last Will and
Testament.xvii[17]
On December 14, 1983, Lorenzo filed with the Regional Trial Court, Iriga, Camarines
Sur, a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testament wherein
Lorenzo moved that Alicia be appointed Special Administratrix of his estate.xviii[18]

On September 4, 1985, Paula filed with the same court a petitionxxii[22] for letters of
administration over Lorenzos estate in her favor. Paula contended (1) that she was
Lorenzos surviving spouse, (2) that the various property were acquired during their
marriage, (3) that Lorenzos will disposed of all his property in favor of Alicia and her
children, encroaching on her legitime and 1/2 share in the conjugal property. xxiii[23]
On December 13, 1985, Alicia filed in the testate proceeding (Sp. Proc. No. IR-755), a
petition for the issuance of letters testamentary. xxiv[24]
On October 14, 1985, without terminating the testate proceedings, the trial court gave
due course to Paulas petition in Sp. Proc. No. IR-888.xxv[25]
On November 6, 13 and 20, 1985, the order was published in the newspaper Bicol
Star.xxvi[26]
On May 18, 1987, the Regional Trial Court issued a joint decision, thus:
Wherefore, considering that this court has so found that the divorce decree granted to
the late Lorenzo Llorente is void and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the
marriage he contracted with Alicia Fortunato on January 16, 1958 at Manila is likewise
void. This being so the petition of Alicia F. Llorente for the issuance of letters
testamentary is denied. Likewise, she is not entitled to receive any share from the
estate even if the will especially said so her relationship with Lorenzo having gained
the status of paramour which is under Art. 739 (1).
On the other hand, the court finds the petition of Paula Titular Llorente, meritorious,
and so declares the intrinsic disposition of the will of Lorenzo Llorente dated March
13, 1981 as void and declares her entitled as conjugal partner and entitled to one-half of
their conjugal properties, and as primary compulsory heir, Paula T. Llorente is also
entitled to one-third of the estate and then one-third should go to the illegitimate
children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surname (sic) Llorente, for them to partition in
equal shares and also entitled to the remaining free portion in equal shares.

Petitioner, Paula Llorente is appointed legal administrator of the estate of the

deceased, Lorenzo Llorente. As such let the corresponding letters of administration
issue in her favor upon her filing a bond in the amount (sic) of P100,000.00
conditioned for her to make a return to the court within three (3) months a true and
complete inventory of all goods, chattels, rights, and credits, and estate which shall at
any time come to her possession or to the possession of any other person for her, and
from the proceeds to pay and discharge all debts, legacies and charges on the same, or
such dividends thereon as shall be decreed or required by this court; to render a true
and just account of her administration to the court within one (1) year, and at any other
time when required by the court and to perform all orders of this court by her to be
performed.
On the other matters prayed for in respective petitions for want of evidence could not
be granted.
SO ORDERED.xxvii[27]
In time, Alicia filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration of the aforequoted
decision.xxviii[28]
On September 14, 1987, the trial court denied Alicias motion for reconsideration but
modified its earlier decision, stating that Raul and Luz Llorente are not children
legitimate or otherwise of Lorenzo since they were not legally adopted by him.xxix
[29] Amending its decision of May 18, 1987, the trial court declared Beverly Llorente
as the only illegitimate child of Lorenzo, entitling her to one-third (1/3) of the estate
and one-third (1/3) of the free portion of the estate.xxx[30]
On September 28, 1987, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals.xxxi[31]
On July 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision, affirming with
modification the decision of the trial court in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that Alicia is declared as co-owner of whatever properties she and
the deceased may have acquired during the twenty-five (25) years of cohabitation.
SO ORDERED.xxxii[32]
On August 25, 1995, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for
reconsideration of the decision.xxxiii[33]

On March 21, 1996, the Court of Appeals,xxxiv[34] denied the motion for lack of merit.
Hence, this petition.xxxv[35]
The Issue
Stripping the petition of its legalese and sorting through the various arguments
raised,xxxvi[36] the issue is simple. Who are entitled to inherit from the late Lorenzo N.
Llorente?
We do not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals. We remand the case to the
trial court for ruling on the intrinsic validity of the will of the deceased.
The Applicable Law
The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen long before and
at the time of: (1) his divorce from Paula; (2) marriage to Alicia; (3) execution of his
will; and (4) death, is duly established, admitted and undisputed.
Thus, as a rule, issues arising from these incidents are necessarily governed by foreign
law.
The Civil Code clearly provides:
Art. 15. 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.
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (emphasis ours)
True, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged
and proved.xxxvii[37]

While the substance of the foreign law was pleaded, the Court of Appeals did not admit
the foreign law. The Court of Appeals and the trial court called to the fore the renvoi
doctrine, where the case was referred back to the law of the decedents domicile, in
this case, Philippine law.
We note that while the trial court stated that the law of New York was not sufficiently
proven, in the same breath it made the categorical, albeit equally unproven statement
that American law follows the domiciliary theory hence, Philippine law applies
when determining the validity of Lorenzos will.xxxviii[38]
First, there is no such thing as one American law. The "national law" indicated in
Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to general American law. There is
no such law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United States.
Each State of the union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in force only
within the State. It can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the
decedent was a resident.xxxix[39] Second, there is no showing that the application of the
renvoi doctrine is called for or required by New York State law.
The trial court held that the will was intrinsically invalid since it contained dispositions
in favor of Alice, who in the trial courts opinion was a mere paramour. The trial court
threw the will out, leaving Alice, and her two children, Raul and Luz, with nothing.
The Court of Appeals also disregarded the will. It declared Alice entitled to one half
(1/2) of whatever property she and Lorenzo acquired during their cohabitation,
applying Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of the will, already
probated as duly executed in accordance with the formalities of Philippine law, is fatal,
especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining.
Validity of the Foreign Divorce
In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.xl[40] we held that owing to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the
policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our concept of
public policy and morality. In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain
divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.
Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals,xli[41] that once
proven that respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce

from petitioner, the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could
very well lose her right to inherit from him.
In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,xlii[42] we recognized the divorce obtained by the respondent
in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. There, we stated that divorce and its
legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in
view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons.
For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be
reversed.xliii[43] We hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his
first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity.
Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the succession to the estate of the decedent) are
matters best left to the determination of the trial court.
Validity of the Will
The Civil Code provides:
Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments
shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of
the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by
Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. (underscoring ours)
The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife and children by
her is glaringly shown in the will he executed. We do not wish to frustrate his wishes,
since he was a foreigner, not covered by our laws on family rights and duties, status,
condition and legal capacity.xliv[44]
Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo are issues
best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and proved. Whether the will was
executed in accordance with the formalities required is answered by referring to
Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly probated.
As a guide however, the trial court should note that whatever public policy or good
customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress did not intend to extend
the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress specifically left the amount
of successional rights to the decedent's national law.xlv[45]

Having thus ruled, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised.
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G. R. SP No. 17446 promulgated on July 31, 1995 is SET ASIDE.
In lieu thereof, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Regional Trial Court and
RECOGNIZES as VALID the decree of divorce granted in favor of the deceased
Lorenzo N. Llorente by the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of San Diego, made final on December 4, 1952.
Further, the Court REMANDS the cases to the court of origin for determination of the
intrinsic validity of Lorenzo N. Llorentes will and determination of the parties
successional rights allowing proof of foreign law with instructions that the trial court
shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch to settle the estate of the deceased within the
framework of the Rules of Court.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii
xxxiv
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxviii
xxxix
xl
xli
xlii
xliii
xliv
xlv