FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124371. November 23, 2000]

PAULA T. LLORENTE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS a ! AL"C"A F. LLORENTE, respondents. #EC"S"ON PAR#O, J.$

T%e Ca&e The case raises a conflict of laws issue. What is before us is an appeal from the decision of the Court of ppeals !"# modif$in% that of the Re%ional Trial Court& Camarines Sur& 'ranch ()& Iri%a Cit$ !*# declarin% respondent licia F. +lorente ,herinafter referred to as - licia./& as co0owners of whate1er propert$ she and the deceased +oren2o N. +lorente ,hereinafter referred to as -+oren2o./ ma$ ha1e ac3uired durin% the twent$0fi1e ,*)/ $ears that the$ li1ed to%ether as husband and wife.

T%e Fa'(& The deceased +oren2o N. +lorente was an enlisted ser1iceman of the 4nited States Na1$ from 5arch "6& "7*8 to September (6& "7)8.!(# On Februar$ **& "7(8& +oren2o and petitioner 9aula +lorente ,hereinafter referred to as -9aula./ were married before a parish priest& Roman Catholic Church& in Nabua& Camarines Sur. !:# 'efore the outbrea; of the 9acific War& +oren2o departed for the 4nited States and 9aula sta$ed in the con<u%al home in barrio ntipolo& Nabua& Camarines Sur. !)# On No1ember (6& "7:(& +oren2o was admitted to 4nited States citi2enship and Certificate of Naturali2ation No. ))87="> was issued in his fa1or b$ the 4nited States District Court& Southern District of New ?or;.!># 4pon the liberation of the 9hilippines b$ the merican Forces in "7:)& +oren2o was %ranted an accrued lea1e b$ the 4. S. Na1$& to 1isit his wife and he 1isited the 9hilippines. !8# @e disco1ered that his wife 9aula was pre%nant and was -li1in% in. and ha1in% an adulterous relationship with his brother& Ceferino +lorente.!=# On December :& "7:)& 9aula %a1e birth to a bo$ re%istered in the Office of the Re%istrar of Nabua as -Crisolo%o +lorente&. with the certificate statin% that the child was not le%itimate and the line for the fatherAs name was left blan;.!7# +oren2o refused to for%i1e 9aula and li1e with her. In fact& on Februar$ *& "7:>& the couple drew a written a%reement to the effect that ,"/ all the famil$ allowances allotted b$ the 4nited States Na1$ as part of +oren2oAs salar$ and all other obli%ations for 9aulaAs dail$ maintenance and support would be

suspendedB ,*/ the$ would dissol1e their marital union in accordance with <udicial proceedin%sB ,(/ the$ would ma;e a separate a%reement re%ardin% their con<u%al propert$ ac3uired durin% their marital lifeB and ,:/ +oren2o would not prosecute 9aula for her adulterous act since she 1oluntaril$ admitted her fault and a%reed to separate from +oren2o peacefull$. The a%reement was si%ned b$ both +oren2o and 9aula and was witnessed b$ 9aulaAs father and stepmother. The a%reement was notari2ed b$ Notar$ 9ublic 9edro Osabel.!"6# +oren2o returned to the 4nited States and on No1ember ">& "7)" filed for di1orce with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the Count$ of San Die%o. 9aula was represented b$ counsel& Cohn Rile$& and acti1el$ participated in the proceedin%s. On No1ember *8& "7)"& the Superior Court of the State of California& for the Count$ of San Die%o found all factual alle%ations to be true and issued an interlocutor$ <ud%ment of di1orce. !""# On December :& "7)*& the di1orce decree became final. !"*# In the meantime& +oren2o returned to the 9hilippines. On Canuar$ ">& "7)=& +oren2o married licia F. +lorente in 5anila. !"(# pparentl$& licia had no ;nowled%e of the first marria%e e1en if the$ resided in the same town as 9aula& who did not oppose the marria%e or cohabitation.!":# From "7)= to "7=)& +oren2o and licia li1ed to%ether as husband and wife. !")# Their twent$0fi1e ,*)/ $ear union produced three children& Raul& +u2 and 'e1erl$& all surnamed +lorente. !"># On 5arch "(& "7="& +oren2o eDecuted a +ast Will and Testament. The will was notari2ed b$ Notar$ 9ublic Sal1ador 5. Occiano& dul$ si%ned b$ +oren2o with attestin% witnesses Francisco @u%o& Francisco Neibres and Tito Tra<ano. In the will& +oren2o be3ueathed all his propert$ to licia and their three children& to witE -,"/ I %i1e and be3ueath to m$ wife +ICI R. FORT4NO eDclusi1el$ m$ residential house and lot& located at San Francisco& Nabua& Camarines Sur& 9hilippines& includin% ++ the personal properties and other mo1ables or belon%in%s that ma$ be found or eDistin% thereinB -,*/ I %i1e and be3ueath eDclusi1el$ to m$ wife licia R. Fortuno and to m$ children& Raul F. +lorente& +u2 F. +lorente and 'e1erl$ F. +lorente& in e3ual shares& all m$ real properties whatsoe1er and wheresoe1er located& specificall$ m$ real properties located at 'aran%a$ ro0 ldao& Nabua& Camarines SurB 'aran%a$ 9alo$on& Nabua& Camarines SurB 'aran%a$ 'aras& Sitio 9u%a& Nabua& Camarines SurB and 'aran%a$ 9alo$on& Sitio Nalilidon%& Nabua& Camarines SurB -,(/ I li;ewise %i1e and be3ueath eDclusi1el$ unto m$ wife licia R. Fortuno and unto m$ children& Raul F. +lorente& +u2 F. +lorente and 'e1erl$ F. +lorente& in e3ual shares& m$ real properties located in Fue2on Cit$ 9hilippines& and co1ered b$ Transfer Certificate of Title No. "==>)*B and m$ lands in ntipolo& Ri2al& 9hilippines& co1ered b$ Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. "*:"7> and ">)"==& both of the Re%istr$ of Deeds of the pro1ince of Ri2al& 9hilippinesB -,:/ That their respecti1e shares in the abo1e0mentioned properties& whether real or personal properties& shall not be disposed of& ceded& sold and con1e$ed to an$ other persons& but could onl$ be sold& ceded& con1e$ed and disposed of b$ and amon% themsel1esB -,)/ I desi%nate m$ wife +ICI R. FORT4NO to be the sole eDecutor of this m$ +ast Will and Testament& and in her default or incapacit$ of the latter to act& an$ of m$ children in the order of a%e& if of a%eB -,>/ I hereb$ direct that the eDecutor named herein or her lawful substitute should ser1ed , sic/ without bondB -,8/ I hereb$ re1o;e an$ and all m$ other wills& codicils& or testamentar$ dispositions heretofore eDecuted& si%ned& or published& b$ meB

-,=/ It is m$ final wish and desire that if I die& no relati1es of mine in an$ de%ree in the +lorenteAs Side should e1er bother and disturb in an$ manner whatsoe1er m$ wife licia R. Fortunato and m$ children with respect to an$ real or personal properties I %a1e and be3ueathed respecti1el$ to each one of them b$ 1irtue of this +ast Will and Testament..!"8# On December ":& "7=(& +oren2o filed with the Re%ional Trial Court& Iri%a& Camarines Sur& a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testament wherein +oren2o mo1ed that licia be appointed Special dministratriD of his estate.!"=# On Canuar$ "=& "7=:& the trial court denied the motion for the reason that the testator +oren2o was still ali1e.!"7# On Canuar$ *:& "7=:& findin% that the will was dul$ eDecuted& the trial court admitted the will to probate.!*6# On Cune ""& "7=)& before the proceedin%s could be terminated& +oren2o died. !*"# On September :& "7=)& 9aula filed with the same court a petition !**# for letters of administration o1er +oren2oAs estate in her fa1or. 9aula contended ,"/ that she was +oren2oAs sur1i1in% spouse& ,*/ that the 1arious propert$ were ac3uired durin% their marria%e& ,(/ that +oren2oAs will disposed of all his propert$ in fa1or of licia and her children& encroachin% on her le%itime and "G* share in the con<u%al propert$. !*(# On December "(& "7=)& licia filed in the testate proceedin% ,Sp. 9roc. No. IR08))/& a petition for the issuance of letters testamentar$.!*:# On October ":& "7=)& without terminatin% the testate proceedin%s& the trial court %a1e due course to 9aulaAs petition in Sp. 9roc. No. IR0===.!*)# On No1ember >& "( and *6& "7=)& the order was published in the newspaper -'icol Star.. !*># On 5a$ "=& "7=8& the Re%ional Trial Court issued a <oint decision& thusE -Wherefore& considerin% that this court has so found that the di1orce decree %ranted to the late +oren2o +lorente is 1oid and inapplicable in the 9hilippines& therefore the marria%e he contracted with licia Fortunato on Canuar$ ">& "7)= at 5anila is li;ewise 1oid. This bein% so the petition of licia F. +lorente for the issuance of letters testamentar$ is denied. +i;ewise& she is not entitled to recei1e an$ share from the estate e1en if the will especiall$ said so her relationship with +oren2o ha1in% %ained the status of paramour which is under rt. 8(7 ,"/. -On the other hand& the court finds the petition of 9aula Titular +lorente& meritorious& and so declares the intrinsic disposition of the will of +oren2o +lorente dated 5arch "(& "7=" as 1oid and declares her entitled as con<u%al partner and entitled to one0half of their con<u%al properties& and as primar$ compulsor$ heir& 9aula T. +lorente is also entitled to one0third of the estate and then one0third should %o to the ille%itimate children& Raul& +u2 and 'e1erl$& all surname , sic/ +lorente& for them to partition in e3ual shares and also entitled to the remainin% free portion in e3ual shares. -9etitioner& 9aula +lorente is appointed le%al administrator of the estate of the deceased& +oren2o +lorente. s such let the correspondin% letters of administration issue in her fa1or upon her filin% a bond in the amount ,sic/ of 9"66&666.66 conditioned for her to ma;e a return to the court within three ,(/ months a true and complete in1entor$ of all %oods& chattels& ri%hts& and credits& and estate which shall at an$ time come to her possession or to the possession of an$ other person for her& and from the proceeds to pa$ and dischar%e all debts& le%acies and char%es on the same& or such di1idends thereon as shall be decreed or re3uired b$ this courtB to render a true and <ust account of her administration to the court within one ,"/ $ear& and at an$ other time when re3uired b$ the court and to perform all orders of this court b$ her to be performed. -On the other matters pra$ed for in respecti1e petitions for want of e1idence could not be %ranted.

-SO ORDHRHD..!*8# In time& licia filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration of the afore3uoted decision. !*=# On September ":& "7=8& the trial court denied liciaAs motion for reconsideration but modified its earlier decision& statin% that Raul and +u2 +lorente are not children -le%itimate or otherwise. of +oren2o since the$ were not le%all$ adopted b$ him. !*7# mendin% its decision of 5a$ "=& "7=8& the trial court declared 'e1erl$ +lorente as the onl$ ille%itimate child of +oren2o& entitlin% her to one0third ,"G(/ of the estate and one0third ,"G(/ of the free portion of the estate. !(6# On September *=& "7=8& respondent appealed to the Court of ppeals. !("# On Cul$ ("& "77)& the Court of decision of the trial court in this wiseE ppeals promul%ated its decision& affirmin% with modification the

-W@HRHFORH& the decision appealed from is hereb$ FFIR5HD with the 5ODIFIC TION that licia is declared as co0owner of whate1er properties she and the deceased ma$ ha1e ac3uired durin% the twent$0 fi1e ,*)/ $ears of cohabitation. -SO ORDHRHD..!(*# On u%ust *)& "77)& petitioner filed with the Court of decision.!((# ppeals a motion for reconsideration of the

On 5arch *"& "77>& the Court of ppeals&!(:# denied the motion for lac; of merit. @ence& this petition.!()#

T%e "&&)e Strippin% the petition of its le%alese and sortin% throu%h the 1arious ar%uments raised& !(># the issue is simple. Who are entitled to inherit from the late +oren2o N. +lorenteI We do not a%ree with the decision of the Court of ppeals. We remand the case to the trial court for rulin% on the intrinsic 1alidit$ of the will of the deceased.

T%e A**+,'ab+e LaThe fact that the late +oren2o N. +lorente became an merican citi2en lon% before and at the time ofE ,"/ his di1orce from 9aulaB ,*/ marria%e to liciaB ,(/ eDecution of his willB and ,:/ death& is dul$ established& admitted and undisputed. Thus& as a rule& issues arisin% from these incidents are necessaril$ %o1erned b$ forei%n law. The Ci1il Code clearl$ pro1idesE - rt. "). +aws relatin% to famil$ ri%hts and duties& or to the status& condition and le%al capacit$ of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines& e1en thou%h li1in% abroad. - rt. ">. Real propert$ as well as personal propert$ is sub<ect to the law of the countr$ where it is situated.

-@owe1er& intestate and testamentar$ succession& both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri%hts and to the intrinsic 1alidit$ of testamentar$ pro1isions& shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration & whate1er ma$ be the nature of the propert$ and re%ardless of the countr$ wherein said propert$ ma$ be found.. , emphasis ours/ True& forei%n laws do not pro1e themsel1es in our <urisdiction and our courts are not authori2ed to ta;e <udicial notice of them. +i;e an$ other fact& the$ must be alle%ed and pro1ed. !(8# While the substance of the forei%n law was pleaded& the Court of ppeals did not admit the forei%n law. The Court of ppeals and the trial court called to the fore the renvoi doctrine& where the case was -referred bac;. to the law of the decedentAs domicile& in this case& 9hilippine law. We note that while the trial court stated that the law of New ?or; was not sufficientl$ pro1en& in the same breath it made the cate%orical& albeit e3uall$ unpro1en statement that - merican law follows the Jdomiciliar$ theor$A hence& 9hilippine law applies when determinin% the 1alidit$ of +oren2oAs will. !(=# F,r&(& there is no such thin% as one merican law. The Knational lawK indicated in rticle "> of the Ci1il Code cannot possibl$ appl$ to %eneral merican law. There is no such law %o1ernin% the 1alidit$ of testamentar$ pro1isions in the 4nited States. Hach State of the union has its own law applicable to its citi2ens and in force onl$ within the State. It can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the decedent was a resident. !(7# Se'o !& there is no showin% that the application of the renvoi doctrine is called for or re3uired b$ New ?or; State law. The trial court held that the will was intrinsicall$ in1alid since it contained dispositions in fa1or of lice& who in the trial courtAs opinion was a mere paramour. The trial court threw the will out& lea1in% lice& and her two children& Raul and +u2& with nothin%. The Court of ppeals also disre%arded the will. It declared lice entitled to one half ,"G*/ of whate1er propert$ she and +oren2o ac3uired durin% their cohabitation& appl$in% rticle ":: of the Ci1il Code of the 9hilippines. The hast$ application of 9hilippine law and the complete disre%ard of the will& alread$ probated as dul$ eDecuted in accordance with the formalities of 9hilippine law& is fatal& especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining.

.a+,!,(/ o0 (%e Fore,1 #,vor'e In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.!:6# we held that owin% to the nationalit$ principle embodied in rticle ") of the Ci1il Code& onl$ 9hilippine nationals are co1ered b$ the polic$ a%ainst absolute di1orces& the same bein% considered contrar$ to our concept of public polic$ and moralit$. In the same case& the Court ruled that aliens ma$ obtain di1orces abroad& pro1ided the$ are 1alid accordin% to their national law. Citin% this landmar; case& the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals&!:"# that once pro1en that respondent was no lon%er a Filipino citi2en when he obtained the di1orce from petitioner& the rulin% in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could -1er$ well lose her ri%ht to inherit. from him. In Pilapil v. Ibay- omera&!:*# we reco%ni2ed the di1orce obtained b$ the respondent in his countr$& the Federal Republic of Lerman$. There& we stated that di1orce and its le%al effects ma$ be reco%ni2ed in the 9hilippines insofar as respondent is concerned in 1iew of the nationalit$ principle in our ci1il law on the status of persons. For failin% to appl$ these doctrines& the decision of the Court of ppeals must be re1ersed. !:(# We hold that the di1orce obtained b$ +oren2o @. +lorente from his first wife 9aula was 1alid and reco%ni2ed in this <urisdiction as a matter of comit$. Now& the effects of this di1orce ,as to the succession to the estate of the decedent/ are matters best left to the determination of the trial court.

.a+,!,(/ o0 (%e 2,++ The Ci1il Code pro1idesE - rt. "8. The forms and solemnities of contracts& wills& and other public instruments shall be %o1erned b$ the laws of the country in which they are executed. -When the acts referred to are eDecuted before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the 9hilippines in a forei%n countr$& the solemnities established b$ 9hilippine laws shall be obser1ed in their eDecution.. ,un!erscorin" ours/ The clear intent of +oren2o to be3ueath his propert$ to his second wife and children b$ her is %larin%l$ shown in the will he eDecuted. We do not wish to frustrate his wishes& since he was a forei%ner& not co1ered b$ our laws on -famil$ ri%hts and duties& status& condition and le%al capacit$.. !::# Whether the will is intrinsicall$ 1alid and who shall inherit from +oren2o are issues best pro1ed b$ forei%n law which must be pleaded and pro1ed. Whether the will was eDecuted in accordance with the formalities re3uired is answered b$ referrin% to 9hilippine law. In fact& the will was dul$ probated. s a %uide howe1er& the trial court should note that whate1er public polic$ or %ood customs ma$ be in1ol1ed in our s$stem of le%itimes& Con%ress did not intend to eDtend the same to the succession of forei%n nationals. Con%ress specificall$ left the amount of successional ri%hts to the decedentMs national law.!:)# @a1in% thus ruled& we find it unnecessar$ to pass upon the other issues raised.

T%e Fa++o 23EREFORE& the petition is LR NTHD. The decision of the Court of ppeals in C 0L. R. S9 No. "8::> promul%ated on Cul$ ("& "77) is SHT SIDH. In lieu thereof& the Court RHVHRSHS the decision of the Re%ional Trial Court and RHCOLNINHS as V +ID the decree of di1orce %ranted in fa1or of the deceased +oren2o N. +lorente b$ the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the Count$ of San Die%o& made final on December :& "7)*. Further& the Court RH5 NDS the cases to the court of ori%in for determination of the intrinsic 1alidit$ of +oren2o N. +lorenteAs will and determination of the partiesA successional ri%hts allowin% proof of forei%n law with instructions that the trial court shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch to settle the estate of the deceased within the framewor; of the Rules of Court. No costs. SO OR#ERE#. Davi!e, Jr., C.J., #Chairman$, Puno, %apunan, and &nares- antia"o, JJ., concur.