Fe De Quita v. CA

FE DE QUITA V. CA FACTS: 1. Fe D. Quit Quita a and and Artu Arturo ro Padl Padlan an were were marrie married d in the the Philipp Phi lippine ines. s. The The ha!e ha!e no "hildr "hildren. en. #owe!e #owe!er$ r$ their their relationship turned sour. Fe sued Arturo %or di!or"e in San Fran"is"o$ Cali%ornia.She su&mitted in the di!or"e pro"e pro"eedi edin's n's a pri!at pri!ate e writin writin' ' dated dated 1( )ul )ul 1(*+ 1(*+ e!iden"in' e!iden"in' their a'reemen a'reementt to li!e separate separatel l %rom ea"h ea"h othe otherr and and a sett settle leme ment nt o% thei theirr "on, "on,u' u'al al properties. a. The The di!o di!orr"e was was 'ran 'rante ted. d. Fe su&s su&see-ue uent ntl l marr marrie ied d Feli eli whi" whi"h h also also ende ended d in di!o di!or" r"e. e. Undeterr Undeterred$ ed$ she married married %or the third time to /ernimont. 0. Arturo Arturo died lea!in' lea!in' no will. )a!ier )a!ier led a petition petition with with 2TC 2TC %or issuan"e o% letters o% administration "on"ernin' the estate o% Arturo Arturo in %a!or o% the Philippine Philippine Trust Trust Compan. 3. 4landi 4landina na Dandan Dandan oppos opposed ed the the motion motion "laimin' "laimin' that she was the sur!i!in' spouse o% Arturo and that the had 5 "hildren. 6. 2uperto uperto$$ &rot &rother her o% Artur Arturo$ o$ "laimed "laimed that he was was the sole sur!i!in' &rother o% Arturo. *. Petit etitio ione nerr Fe$ howe howe!e !er$ r$ mo!e mo!ed d %or %or the the imme immedi diat ate e de"laratio de"laration n o% heirs o% the de"edent de"edent.. The trial "ourt "ourt re-uired the su&mission o% the re"ords o% &irth o% the 5 "hildren$ howe!er$ the re"ords were not su&mitted. 5. TC: TC: Fe and and 2uperto 2uperto are are the onl onl heirs. a. Di!or"e Di!or"e in a %orei'n %orei'n ,urisdi"tio ,urisdi"tion n is not re"o'ni7 re"o'ni7ed ed in the P#$ there%ore$ there%ore$ the di!or"e o% Fe and Arturo is disre'arded. disre'arded. &. The etra,ud etra,udi"ial i"ial settleme settlement nt entered entered into & Fe Fe and Arturo is not !alid due to la"8 o% ,udi"ial appro!al. ". It was not not pro! pro!en en that that the the 5 "hil "hildr dren en wer were a"8nowled'ed & Arturo. 9. 2: partiall partiall 'ranted. 'ranted. The "hildre "hildren n are "onsider "onsidered ed as heirs. ;. 4lan 4landin dina a appe appeal aled ed "ont "onten endi din' n' that that the the "ase "ase was was de"ided without hearin'$ in !iolation o% Se". 1$ 2ule (+$ o% the 2ules o% Court$ whi"h pro!ides that i% there is a

"ontro!ers &e%ore the "ourt as to who are the law%ul heirs o% the de"eased de"eased person or as to the distri&uti!e distri&uti!e shares to whi"h ea"h person is entitled under the law$ the "ontro!e "ontro!ers rs shall shall &e heard heard and de"ided de"ided as in ordinar "ases. (. CA: a'reed a'reed with 4landina. 2emand 2emand the "ase to the TC. TC. ISSUE: /<= the "ase should &e remanded to the TC$ there &ein' a "ontro!ers> "ontro!ers> #E?D: 1. Althou'h Althou'h there there is no dispute dispute that that eists eists as to the the ri'ht o% the "hildren$ there is still a "ontro!ers that remains whi"h is: who is the le'itimate sur!i!in' spouse. 0. The Trial Trial "ourt "ourt relied on the do"trine do"trine in Ten"ha Ten"ha!e7 !e7 !. Es"ao$ wherein a di!or"e on %orei'n ,urisdi"tion shall not &e re"o'ni7ed in the P#. 3. #owe!er$ #owe!er$ &ased &ased %rom the admissio admissions ns o% Petitione Petitionerr that Artur Arturo o remai remained ned a Filipino ilipino$$ it "an "an &e implied implied that petiti petitione onerr ma not not &e a Filipino ilipino Citi7e Citi7en n durin' durin' her di!or"e with Arturo. a. In the "ase "ase o% Van Dorn Dorn !. 2omill 2omillo$ o$ aliens aliens ma o&ta &tain di!o di!orr"es a&roa &road$ d$ whi" hi"h ma ma &e re"o'ni7ed in the Philippines$ pro!ided the are !alid a""ordin' to their national law. 6. /hen /hen as8e as8ed d whet whethe herr she she was was an Amer Ameri" i"an an "iti "iti7e 7en n petiti petitione onerr answer answered ed that that she was sin"e sin"e 1(*6.@ 1(*6.@1( 1( Si'ni"antl$ the de"ree o% di!or"e o% petitioner and Artur Arturo o was o&tain o&tained ed in the same same ear ear. Petit Petition ioner er howe!er did not &other to le a repl memorandum to erase the un"ertaint a&out her "iti7enship at the time o% their di!or"e$ a %a"tual issue re-uirin' hearin's to &e "ondu"ted & the trial "ourt. /hile e it is to &e reman emande ded$ d$ the the -ues -uesti tion on to &e *. /hil determined & the trial "ourt should &e limited onl to the ri'ht o% petitio petitioner ner to inheri inheritt %rom %rom Arturo Arturo as his sur! sur!i! i!in' in' spou spouse se.. Pri! Pri!at ate e resp respon onde dent ntBs Bs "lai "laim m to heirship was alread resol!ed & the trial "ourt. She and Arturo were married on 00 April 1(69 while the prior marria'e o% petitioner and Arturo was su&sistin' there& resultin' in a &i'amous marria'e "onsidered !oid