Case Digest: Llorente v. CA

LORENZO LLORENTE, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent
G.R. NO. 124371.         November 23, 2000

FACTS:

Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente (hereinafter referred to as “Paula”) were married before a parish priest, Roman Catholic Church, in Nabua, Camarines Sur. Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo departed for the United States and Paula stayed in the conjugal home in barrio Antipolo, Nabua, Camarines Sur.[5]

On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization No. 5579816 was issued in his favor by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Paula gave birth to a boy registered in the Office of the Registrar of Nabua as “Crisologo Llorente,” with the certificate stating that the child was not legitimate and the line for the father’s name was left blank.

Lorenzo returned to the United States and on November 16, 1951 filed for divorce with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego. Paula was represented by counsel, John Riley, and actively participated in the proceedings. On November 27, 1951, the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego found all factual allegations to be true and issued an interlocutory judgment of divorce.[11]

Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her. On December 4, 1952, the divorce decree became final. In the meantime, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. Lorenzo married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila.[13] Apparently, Alicia had no knowledge of the first marriage even if they resided in the same town as Paula, who did not oppose the marriage or cohabitation.

Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament. The will was notarized by Notary Public Salvador M. Occiano, duly signed by Lorenzo with attesting witnesses Francisco Hugo, Francisco Neibres and Tito Trajano. In the will, Lorenzo bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children.

Lorenzo filed with the Regional Trial Court, Iriga, Camarines Sur, a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testament wherein Lorenzo moved that Alicia be appointed Special Administratrix of his estate.

Paula filed with the same court a petition*22+ for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor.

RTC: considering that this court has so found that the divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage he contracted with Alicia Fortunato on January 16, 1958 at Manila is likewise void. CA Affirmed

ISSUE:

Who are entitled to inherit?

RULING:

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.[43] 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.

Share this:

Leave a Reply