Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Quita vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mei Suyat
    1) Fe Quita, a Filipino citizen, married Arturo Padlan in the Philippines in 1941. Their relationship deteriorated and Fe filed for divorce in California in 1954, which was granted. She remarried shortly after. 2) When Arturo died in 1972, Blandina Dandan claimed to be his surviving spouse based on their marriage in 1947. However, this marriage was bigamous and void as Fe and Arturo's marriage was still valid. 3) The court had to determine whether Fe's divorce in California was valid and affected her rights as Arturo's surviving spouse to inherit from him. Her citizenship at the time of the divorce was relevant to determine if the divorce ruling would be

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Quita vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mei Suyat
    1K views2 pages
    1) Fe Quita, a Filipino citizen, married Arturo Padlan in the Philippines in 1941. Their relationship deteriorated and Fe filed for divorce in California in 1954, which was granted. She remarried shortly after. 2) When Arturo died in 1972, Blandina Dandan claimed to be his surviving spouse based on their marriage in 1947. However, this marriage was bigamous and void as Fe and Arturo's marriage was still valid. 3) The court had to determine whether Fe's divorce in California was valid and affected her rights as Arturo's surviving spouse to inherit from him. Her citizenship at the time of the divorce was relevant to determine if the divorce ruling would be

    Original Description:

    law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Fe Quita, a Filipino citizen, married Arturo Padlan in the Philippines in 1941. Their relationship deteriorated and Fe filed for divorce in California in 1954, which was granted. She remarried shortly after. 2) When Arturo died in 1972, Blandina Dandan claimed to be his surviving spouse based on their marriage in 1947. However, this marriage was bigamous and void as Fe and Arturo's marriage was still valid. 3) The court had to determine whether Fe's divorce in California was valid and affected her rights as Arturo's surviving spouse to inherit from him. Her citizenship at the time of the divorce was relevant to determine if the divorce ruling would be

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Quita vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mei Suyat
    1) Fe Quita, a Filipino citizen, married Arturo Padlan in the Philippines in 1941. Their relationship deteriorated and Fe filed for divorce in California in 1954, which was granted. She remarried shortly after. 2) When Arturo died in 1972, Blandina Dandan claimed to be his surviving spouse based on their marriage in 1947. However, this marriage was bigamous and void as Fe and Arturo's marriage was still valid. 3) The court had to determine whether Fe's divorce in California was valid and affected her rights as Arturo's surviving spouse to inherit from him. Her citizenship at the time of the divorce was relevant to determine if the divorce ruling would be

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    8. Quita vs.

    CA 300 SCRA 406


    Facts:
    -On May 18 1941, Fe Quita married Arturo Padlan here in the Philippines
    -They were both Filipino citizens.
    -Their relationship suddenly turned sour, so Fe filed for divorce against Arturo in San
    Francisco, California.
    -On July 23, 1954, there was a final decree of divorce.
    -3 weeks later Fe Quita married another guy.
    -Arturo died on 1972, Blandina Dandan then claimed to be the surviving spouse of
    Arturo since they were married on April 22, 1947.
    Issues:
    1) Whether or not the divorce decree from San Francisco is valid under Philippine
    Jurisdiction.
    2) Whether or not Private Respondent Blandina Dandan is the surviving spouse.
    Held:
    1) No.
    Then in private respondent's motion to set aside and/or reconsider the lower court's
    decision she stressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of
    the ruling in Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr.[13] that aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
    which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to
    their national law. She prayed therefore that the case be set for hearing.[14]
    Petitioner opposed the motion but failed to squarely address the issue on her
    citizenship.[15] The trial court did not grant private respondent's prayer for a
    hearing but proceeded to resolve her motion with the finding that both
    petitioner and Arturo were "Filipino citizens and were married in the
    Philippines."[16] It maintained that their divorce obtained in 1954 in San
    Francisco, California, U.S.A., was not valid in Philippine jurisdiction. We
    deduce that the finding on their citizenship pertained solely to the time of
    their marriage as the trial court was not supplied with a basis to
    determine petitioner's citizenship at the time of their divorce. The doubt
    persisted as to whether she was still a Filipino citizen when their divorce
    was decreed. The trial court must have overlooked the materiality of this aspect.
    Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce,
    Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to
    inherit from Arturo.
    2) No.
    We emphasize however that the question to be determined by the trial court should
    be limited only to the right of petitioner to inherit from Arturo as his surviving
    spouse. Private respondent's claim to heirship was already resolved by the
    trial court. She and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the prior

    marriage of petitioner and Arturo was subsisting thereby resulting in a


    bigamous marriage considered void from the beginning under Arts. 80 and
    83 of the Civil Code. Consequently, she is not a surviving spouse that can
    inherit from him as this status presupposes a legitimate relationship.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy