[Type text][Type text][Type text]

Llorente v CAPetitioner: PAULA T. LLORENTERespondent: COURT OF APPEALS and ALICIA F. LLORENTEPonente: Pardo, J.

DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:

1. In 1927, Lorenzo Llorente, then a Filipino, was enlisted in the U.S. Navy. In 1937, he and Paula Llorente got married in Camarines Sur. In 1943, Lorenzo became an American citizen.

2. In 1945, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines for a vacation. He discovered that Paula was already living illicitly with Ceferino Llorente (brother of Lorenzo). Ceferino and Paula even had a son.

3. Lorenzo then refused to live with Paula. He also refused to give her monetary support. Eventually, Lorenzo and Paula agreed in writing Lorenzo shall not criminally charge Paula if the latter agrees to waive all monetary support from Lorenzo. Later, Lorenzo returned to the United States.

4. In 1951, Lorenzo filed a divorce proceeding against Paula in California. Paula was represented by an American counsel. The divorce was granted and in 1952, the divorce became final.

5. Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. In 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia Fortuno. They had three children.

6. In 1981, Lorenzo executed his last will and testament where he left all his estate to Alicia and their children (nothing for Paula). In 1983, he went to court for the wills probate and to have Alicia as the administratrix of his property. In 1985, before the probate proceeding can be terminated, Lorenzo died. Later, Paula filed a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzos estate.

7. The trial court ruled that Lorenzos marriage with Alicia is void because the divorce he obtained abroad is void. The trial court ratiocinated that Lorenzo is a Filipino hence divorce is not applicable to him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in disregarding the will. (This might be the pertinent issue)2. Whether or not the divorce is valid.

RULING + RATIO: 1. YES. 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.a. Art. 17 of the Civil Code provides that 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. b. 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.c. 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.d. 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.e. 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.[45]f. Having thus ruled, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised.2. Other Issue: Yes, the Divorce is valid because Llorenzo was no longer a Filipino citizen and therefore is not governed by the Civil Code. (Divorce is allowed by the United States of America.)

DISPOSITIONWHEREFORE, 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.