53 Llorente v. CA

SpecPro - 53 - Maguigad
LLORENTE vs. CA he contracted with Alicia Fortunato on January 16, 1958 at

G.R. No. 124371|November 23, 2000|PARDO J., Manila is likewise void. CA Affirmed
FACTS ISSUE(S)
LORENZO AND PAULA WERE MARRIED IN PHILIPPINES Whether or not the National Law shall apply.
THEN LORENZO PARTICIPATED IN THE WAR.
Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente (hereinafter referred RULING
to as “Paula”) were married before a parish priest, Roman
Catholic Church, in Nabua, Camarines Sur. Before the Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction
outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo departed for the United and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice
States and Paula stayed in the conjugal home in barrio of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and
Antipolo, Nabua, Camarines Sur. proved
LORENZO BECAME A US CITIZEN AND PAULA GAVE BIRTH RENVOI WAS APPLIED BY THE LOWER COURTS.
TO A BOY. While the substance of the foreign law was pleaded, the
On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United Court of Appeals did not admit the foreign law. The Court of
States citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization No. Appeals and the trial court called to the fore the renvoi
5579816 was issued in his favor by the United States District doctrine, where the case was referred back to the law of the
Court, Southern District of New York. Paula gave birth to a decedents domicile, in this case, Philippine law.
boy registered in the Office of the Registrar of Nabua as
“Crisologo Llorente,” with the certificate stating that the We note that while the trial court stated that the law of New
child was not legitimate and the line for the father’s name York was not sufficiently proven, in the same breath it made
was left blank. the categorical, albeit equally unproven statement that
American law follows the domiciliary theory hence,
LORENZO FILED A DIVORCE Philippine law applies when determining the validity of
Lorenzo returned to the United States and on November 16, Lorenzos will.
1951 filed for divorce with the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of San Diego. Paula was THE TRIAL COURT WAS WRONG SINCE THEY APPLIED
represented by counsel, John Riley, and actively participated THAT NATIONAL LAW = AMERICAL LAW.
in the proceedings. On November 27, 1951, the Superior First, there is no such thing as one American law. The
Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot
found all factual allegations to be true and issued an possibly apply to general American law. There is no such law
interlocutory judgment of divorce. 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
LORENZO REFUSED TO FORGIVE PAULA AND LIVE WITH can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of
HER. which the decedent was a resident. Second, there is no
On December 4, 1952, the divorce decree became final. In showing that the application of the renvoi doctrine is called
the meantime, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. Lorenzo for or required by New York State law.
married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila.[13] Apparently, Alicia
had no knowledge of the first marriage even if they resided The trial court held that the will was intrinsically invalid since
in the same town as Paula, who did not oppose the marriage it contained dispositions in favor of Alice, who in the trial
or cohabitation. courts opinion was a mere paramour. The trial court threw
the will out, leaving Alice, and her two children, Raul and Luz,
LORENZO EXECUTED A LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT. with nothing.
The will was notarized by Notary Public Salvador M. Occiano,
duly signed by Lorenzo with attesting witnesses Francisco THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO DISREGARDED THE WILL.
Hugo, Francisco Neibres and Tito Trajano. In the will, It declared Alice entitled to one half (1/2) of whatever
Lorenzo bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three property she and Lorenzo acquired during their cohabitation,
children. applying Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Lorenzo filed with the Regional Trial Court, Iriga, The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete
Camarines Sur, a petition for the probate and allowance disregard of the will, already probated as duly executed in
of his last will and testament wherein Lorenzo moved accordance with the formalities of Philippine law, is fatal,
that Alicia be appointed Special Administratrix of his especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here
estate. obtaining.
Paula filed with the same court a petition for letters of It is undisputed by Paula Llorente that Lorenzo became
administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor. an American citizen in 1943. Hence, when he obtained
the divorce decree in 1952, he is already an American
RTC: considering that this court has so found that the citizen. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides:
divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void
and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are
SpecPro - 53 - Maguigad
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad.
DIVORCE IS VALID
Since Lorenzo was no longer a Filipino, Philipine laws
relating to family rights, duties, or status are no longer
applicable to him. Therefore, the divorce decree he obtained
abroad must be respected. The rule is: aliens may obtain
divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their
national law.
However, this case was still remanded to the lower court so

as for the latter to determine the effects of the divorce as to
the successional rights of Lorenzo and his heirs.
Anent the issue on Lorenzo’s last will and testament, it

must be respected. He is an alien and is not covered by
our laws on succession. However, since the will was
submitted to our courts for probate, then the case was
remanded to the lower court where the foreign law must be
alleged in order to prove the validity of the will.
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.”
For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court

of Appeals must be reversed. 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.
“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. Will is
valid. SC reversed the decision.

53 Llorente v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

53 Llorente v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

53 Llorente v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SpecPro - 53 - Maguigad

LLORENTE vs. CA he contracted with Alicia Fortunato on January 16, 1958 at

However, this case was still remanded to the lower court so

Anent the issue on Lorenzo’s last will and testament, it

However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with

For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court

“Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills,

You might also like

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