RAMIREZ V.

GMUR, 42 PHIL 855 (1918)

FACTS: Samuel Bischoff Werthmuller, a native of Switzerland, but for many years
a resident of Philippines, died testate in Iloilo on June 29, 1913. A few days after
his death, the will was offered for probate in CFI Iloilo and was subsequently
admitted.
1. His widow, Dona Ana Ramirez, was named executrix. According to the
will, the decedents estate was bequeathed to his widow, except for a
property in Thun, Switzerland, which was devised to the decedents
brothers and sisters
2. It appears that while the decedent had no children with Ramirez, he
ignored possible claims of two sets of children, both to his natural
daughter, Leona Castro
3. Based on the baptismal entry in Bacolod, Leona Castro was born on April
11, 1875, her mother Felisa Castro and father unknown. On the margin
of this record, there is additional annotation (escritura or public
document) that she was recognized by Samuel Bischoff on June 22, 1877.
Bischoff and his family raised Leona and he treated her as his own.
4. Leona married Frederick von Kauffman in 1895 in Hong Kong. From this
marriage, 3 children were born: Elena, Federico and Ernesto
5. Subsequently, Leona went with Frederick to Thun, Switzerland, to improve
her health and live there for a few years. Later she informed her husband
that she wanted a separation. As such, Kauffman went to Paris, France to
obtain a divorce from his wife under French laws. A divorce decree was
then issued on Jan 5, 1905 in favor of Kauffman against Leona, in default.
Though the record shows that Leona was residing in Paris, there is no
evidence that she had acquired permanent domicile in that city
6. Leona later cohabited with her physician, Dr. Ernest Emil Mory (in charge
of the sanatorium in Switzerland) in London. They later married in London
in 1905. It appears that Mory had previously been married to one Helena
Wolpman but later divorced. Prior to Morys marriage to Leona, they had
a daughter Leontina Elizabeth. In 106, they had Carmen Maria and in
1909, Esther. Leona died on Oct 6, 1910
7. Respondent Otto Gmur appeared as guardian of the 3 Mory claimants,
while Frederick von Kauffman appeared as the guardian of his 3 children
8. Both sets of children anchor their claim on the contention that Leona was
the recognized natural daughter of Samuel Bischoff, as a forced heir, the
claimants are entitled to 1/3 interest in Bischoffs estate
9. On the other hand, Ramirez contended that Leona Castro had never
been recognized at all by the decedent during his lifetime
10. On the part of the Mory claimants, they argue that the marriage between
Leona and Kauffman was dissolved by the decree of divorce granted by
the Paris court in Jan 5, 1905 and that the subsequent marriage between
Leona and Mory was in all respects valid and the children legitimate
offspring of Leona

11. On the part of the Kauffman claimants, they insisted that the decree of
divorce was invalid and they alone are the legitimate offspring of Leona
who are entitled to participate in the division of the estate of Bischoff
ISSUE: WON Leona is the recognized natural daughter of Samuel Bischoff
HELD: Yes. It is proved that prior to her marriage with Kauffman, Leona was in an
uninterrupted enjoyment of the de facto status of a natural child and was
treated as such by Bischoff and his kindred. The proof of tacit recognition is full
and complete.
From the memorandum made by Padre Ferrero in the record of birth as well as
in his testimony, it appears that Bischoff executed a notarized document
recognizing Leona as his daughter. While the note itself was not presented in
evidence, it was shown that diligent search was made to discover its
whereabouts but without avail. This was sufficient to justify the introduction of
secondary evidence concerning its contents; and the testimony of the priest
showed that the fact of recognition was therein stated. Furthermore, the
memorandum in the baptismal record itself constitutes original and substantive
proof of the facts therein.
The recognition of Leona as Samuel Bischoffs daughter occurred prior to the
Civil Code and consequently, her rights as derived from the recognition must be
determined under the law when it existed. Under the law, recognition could be
established by proof of acts on the part of the parent unequivocally recognizing
the status of his offspring. In other words, tacit recognition was sufficient.
ISSUE: WON Felisa Castro (Leonas mother) was without legal impediment
HELD: Yes. There is no evidence to show that Felisa Castro was either a single
woman or widow at the time of Leonas birth. In the absence of proof to the
contrary, however, it must be presumed that she was a single woman or a
widow.
The contrary presumption would be that Felisa was guilty of adultery cannot be
entertained. If such had been the case, the burden of proving it would have
been upon the persons impugning the recognition of the child by her father.
ISSUE: WON Leona stands to inherit from the estate of Samuel Bischoff
HELD: Yes. From the fact that Leona was an acknowledged natural daughter of
the decedent, it follows that had she survived him she would have been his
forced heir, he having died after the Civil Code took effect; and as such forced
heir, she would have been entitled to 1/3 of the inheritance.

ISSUE: WON the Kauffman claimants are entitled to participate in the division of
the estate
HELD: Yes. Since the Kauffman children were born during the marriage of Leona
and Kauffman, it follows that they are entitled to participate in the inheritance
which would have devolved upon their mother, if she had survived the testator.
ISSUE: WON the divorce decree granted by the Paris court can be recognized in
the Philippines
HELD: No. The divorce decree in question cannot be recognized as valid in the
Philippines. The French tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an action for the
dissolution of a marriage contracted in the Philippines by a person domiciled
her; such marriage being indissoluble under the laws then prevailing in this
country.
The evidence shows that both Kauffman and Leona are domiciled in Iloilo,
Philippines and that their departure to Switzerland was for medical purpose, and
that Kauffman went to Paris in 1904 to obtain a divorce without an intention to
establish permanent residence in that city.
A court, where neither of the spouses is domiciled, and to which one or both of
them may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, has no
jurisdiction to determine their matrimonial status; and a divorce granted by such
a court is not entitled to recognition elsewhere.
ISSUE: WON the Mory claimants are entitled to the estate
HELD: No. With regard to the Mory claimants, their rights principally depend
upon the effect to be given by this court to divorce degree granted to
Kauffman in Paris. If divorce decree is valid, the subsequent marriage of Leona
and Mory is also valid.
Since the divorce granted by the French court cannot be recognized, it follows
that the marriage between Mory and Leona in London could not legalize their
relations. The claims of the Mory children to participate in the estate of Bischoff
must be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated, and
acknowledged natural children.
ISSUE: What is the effect of the probate of a will upon the rights of forced heirs
who did not appear to contest the probate?

HELD: The rights of the forced heirs to their legitime are not divested by the
decree admitting a will to probatethis is regardless of the fact that no
provision has been made for them in the will, for the decree of probate is
conclusive only with regard to the due execution of the will.
Under Sec 753 Code of Civil Procedure, forced heirs cannot be prejudiced by
the failure of a testator to provide for them in his will; and regardless of the
intention of the testator to leave all his property to his wife, the will is intrinsically
invalid insofar as it would operate to cut off their rights.
DISPOSITIVE: The order allowing Leontina Mory to participate in the estate of
Samuel Bischoff is reversed; and instead the Kauffman children will be admitted
to share equally in 1/3 of the estate as provided in the decision of Judge Powell
dated Nov 14, 1916. In other respects, the decision of Judge Mariano is affirmed.