1) Fe D. Quita filed a petition to be declared an heir of her deceased ex-husband Arturo Padlan.
2) Blandina Dandan, claiming to be Arturo's surviving spouse, opposed the petition along with Arturo's brother Ruperto.
3) The trial court declared only Fe and Ruperto as heirs but the Court of Appeals remanded the case for a determination of whether Fe's foreign divorce from Arturo should be recognized given uncertainty around her citizenship at the time.
1) Fe D. Quita filed a petition to be declared an heir of her deceased ex-husband Arturo Padlan.
2) Blandina Dandan, claiming to be Arturo's surviving spouse, opposed the petition along with Arturo's brother Ruperto.
3) The trial court declared only Fe and Ruperto as heirs but the Court of Appeals remanded the case for a determination of whether Fe's foreign divorce from Arturo should be recognized given uncertainty around her citizenship at the time.
1) Fe D. Quita filed a petition to be declared an heir of her deceased ex-husband Arturo Padlan.
2) Blandina Dandan, claiming to be Arturo's surviving spouse, opposed the petition along with Arturo's brother Ruperto.
3) The trial court declared only Fe and Ruperto as heirs but the Court of Appeals remanded the case for a determination of whether Fe's foreign divorce from Arturo should be recognized given uncertainty around her citizenship at the time.
1) Fe D. Quita filed a petition to be declared an heir of her deceased ex-husband Arturo Padlan.
2) Blandina Dandan, claiming to be Arturo's surviving spouse, opposed the petition along with Arturo's brother Ruperto.
3) The trial court declared only Fe and Ruperto as heirs but the Court of Appeals remanded the case for a determination of whether Fe's foreign divorce from Arturo should be recognized given uncertainty around her citizenship at the time.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
FE DE QUITA V.
CA controversy before the court as to who are the lawful
heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive FACTS: shares to which each person is entitled under the law, 1. Fe D. Quita and Arturo Padlan were married in the the controversy shall be heard and decided as in Philippines. They have no children. However, their ordinary cases. relationship turned sour. Fe sued Arturo for divorce in 9. CA: agreed with Blandina. Remand the case to the TC. San Francisco, California.She submitted in the divorce proceedings a private writing dated 19 July 1950 ISSUE: WON the case should be remanded to the TC, there evidencing their agreement to live separately from being a controversy? each other and a settlement of their conjugal properties. HELD: a. The divorce was granted. Fe subsequently 1. Although there is no dispute that exists as to the right married Felix which also ended in divorce. of the children, there is still a controversy that remains Undeterred, she married for the third time to which is: who is the legitimate surviving spouse. Wernimont. 2. The Trial court relied on the doctrine in Tenchavez v. 2. Arturo died leaving no will. Javier filed a petition with Escao, wherein a divorce on foreign jurisdiction shall RTC for issuance of letters of administration concerning not be recognized in the PH. the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust 3. However, based from the admissions of Petitioner that Company. Arturo remained a Filipino, it can be implied that 3. Blandina Dandan opposed the motion claiming that petitioner may not be a Filipino Citizen during her she was the surviving spouse of Arturo and that they divorce with Arturo. had 6 children. a. In the case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, aliens may 4. Ruperto, brother of Arturo, claimed that he was the obtain divorces abroad, which may be sole surviving brother of Arturo. recognized in the Philippines, provided they are 5. Petitioner Fe, however, moved for the immediate valid according to their national law. declaration of heirs of the decedent. The trial court 4. When asked whether she was an American citizen required the submission of the records of birth of the 6 petitioner answered that she was since 1954.[19] children, however, the records were not submitted. Significantly, the decree of divorce of petitioner and 6. TC: Fe and Ruperto are the only heirs. Arturo was obtained in the same year. Petitioner a. Divorce in a foreign jurisdiction is not recognized however did not bother to file a reply memorandum to in the PH, therefore, the divorce of Fe and Arturo erase the uncertainty about her citizenship at the time is disregarded. of their divorce, a factual issue requiring hearings to b. The extrajudicial settlement entered into by Fe be conducted by the trial court. and Arturo is not valid due to lack of judicial 5. While it is to be remanded, the question to be approval. determined by the trial court should be limited only to c. It was not proven that the 6 children were the right of petitioner to inherit from Arturo as his acknowledged by Arturo. surviving spouse. Private respondent's claim to 7. MR: partially granted. The children are considered as heirship was already resolved by the trial court. She heirs. and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the 8. Blandina appealed contending that the case was prior marriage of petitioner and Arturo was subsisting decided without hearing, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 90, thereby resulting in a bigamous marriage considered of the Rules of Court, which provides that if there is a void
