Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 319 views

    Quita v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie
    Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan were married in the Philippines in 1941 but later divorced in the United States in 1954. Arturo then married Blandina Dandan in 1947 while still legally married to Fe. Arturo died in 1972 without a will. Both Fe and Blandina claimed to be Arturo's legal surviving spouse entitled to inherit from his estate. The court ruled that Blandina's marriage to Arturo was bigamous and void since he was still married to Fe at the time. As such, Blandina did not have a legitimate relationship with Arturo and could not inherit as his surviving spouse. The court affirmed lower court rulings declaring Fe to be Arturo's legal

    Copyright:

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

    Quita v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie
    319 views2 pages
    Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan were married in the Philippines in 1941 but later divorced in the United States in 1954. Arturo then married Blandina Dandan in 1947 while still legally married to Fe. Arturo died in 1972 without a will. Both Fe and Blandina claimed to be Arturo's legal surviving spouse entitled to inherit from his estate. The court ruled that Blandina's marriage to Arturo was bigamous and void since he was still married to Fe at the time. As such, Blandina did not have a legitimate relationship with Arturo and could not inherit as his surviving spouse. The court affirmed lower court rulings declaring Fe to be Arturo's legal

    Original Description:

    Persons

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan were married in the Philippines in 1941 but later divorced in the United States in 1954. Arturo then married Blandina Dandan in 1947 while still legally married to Fe. Arturo died in 1972 without a will. Both Fe and Blandina claimed to be Arturo's legal surviving spouse entitled to inherit from his estate. The court ruled that Blandina's marriage to Arturo was bigamous and void since he was still married to Fe at the time. As such, Blandina did not have a legitimate relationship with Arturo and could not inherit as his surviving spouse. The court affirmed lower court rulings declaring Fe to be Arturo's legal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    319 views2 pages

    Quita v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie
    Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan were married in the Philippines in 1941 but later divorced in the United States in 1954. Arturo then married Blandina Dandan in 1947 while still legally married to Fe. Arturo died in 1972 without a will. Both Fe and Blandina claimed to be Arturo's legal surviving spouse entitled to inherit from his estate. The court ruled that Blandina's marriage to Arturo was bigamous and void since he was still married to Fe at the time. As such, Blandina did not have a legitimate relationship with Arturo and could not inherit as his surviving spouse. The court affirmed lower court rulings declaring Fe to be Arturo's legal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    FE D. QUITA, Petitioner, v.

    COURT OF APPEALS and BLANDINA DANDAN,* Respondent

    Facts

    FE D. QUITA and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. They
    were not however blessed with children. Somewhere along the way their relationship soured. Eventually
    Fe sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. She submitted in the divorce proceedings a
    private writing dated 19 July 1950 evidencing their agreement to live separately from each other and a
    settlement of their conjugal properties. On 23 July 1954 she obtained a final judgment of divorce. Three
    (3) weeks thereafter she married a certain Felix Tupaz in the same locality but their relationship also
    ended in a divorce. Still in the U.S.A., she married for the third time, to a certain Wernimont.

    On 16 April 1972 Arturo died. He left no will. On 31 August 1972 Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with
    the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for issuance of letters of administration concerning the estate of
    Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Company. Respondent Blandina Dandan (also referred to as
    Blandina Padlan), claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo,
    Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named in the petition as surviving children of
    Arturo Padlan, Later Ruperto T. Padlan, claiming to be the sole surviving brother of the deceased Arturo,
    intervened.

    Respondent married Arturo on 1947 which the marriage between Arturo and petitioner was subsisting.

    Issue: Whether or not who among Respondent or Petitioner the legal as 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.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals ordering the remand
    of the case to the court of origin for further proceedings and declaring null and void its decision holding
    petitioner Fe D. Quita and Ruperto T. Padlan as intestate heirs is AFFIRMED. The order of the appellate
    court modifying its previous decision by granting one-half (1/2) of the net hereditary estate to the Padlan
    children, namely, Claro, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, with the exception of Alexis, all
    surnamed Padlan, instead of Arturo's brother Ruperto Padlan, is likewise AFFIRMED. The Court however
    emphasizes that the reception of evidence by the trial court should be limited to the hereditary rights of
    petitioner as the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan.

    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