Quita vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 124862, December 22, 1998
FACTS:
Fe Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941 and were not blessed with children. Their relationship soured and eventually Fe sued Arturo for divorce in U.S.A and in July 1954, she obtained a final judgment of divorce. Three weeks after, 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 and left no will. In 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 BlandinaDandan, claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named in the children of Arturo Padlan, opposed the petition and prayed for the appointment instead of Atty. Leonardo Casaba, which was resolved in favor of the latter. Upon motion of the oppositors themselves, Atty. Cabasal was later replaced by Higino Castillon. On 30 April 1973 the oppositors submitted certified photocopies of the 19 July 1950 private writing and the final judgment of divorce between petitioner and Arturo. Later Ruperto T. Padlan, claiming to be the sole surviving brother of the deceased Arturo, intervened.
Petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent and the distribution of his estate. At a scheduled hearing, the trial court required the submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children within ten days from receipt thereof, after which, with or without the documents, the issue on the declaration of heirs would be considered submitted for resolution. The prescribed period lapsed without the required documents being submitted.
ISSUE:
Who between petitioner and private respondent may validly claim as the spouse of the decedent
RULING:
The right of petitioner to inherit as Arturo’s spouse must still be determined by the trial court. The trial court failed to conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship when she obtained the divorce abroad. The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the truth of the matters in issue with the aid of documentary and testimonial evidence as well as the arguments of the parties either supporting or opposing the evidence.
On the other hand, 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.
The case was remanded to the trial court.
