Llorente vs. Court of Appeals

A foreign divorce obtained by an alien (naturalized American citizen) from his Filipino spouse is valid and recognizable in the Philippines under the nationality principle (Article 15, Civil Code), and the intrinsic validity of his will and successional rights are governed by his national law (Article 16, Civil Code), not Philippine law.

Lorenzo Llorente was a Filipino who served in the United States Navy, became a naturalized American citizen in 1943, and married Paula in 1937. After discovering Paula's adultery in 1945, they separated. He obtained a divorce in California in 1952, married Alicia in Manila in 1958, and lived with her for twenty-five years, producing three children. He executed a will in 1981 leaving all his property to Alicia and their children. After his death in 1985, a conflict arose between Paula (first wife) and Alicia (second wife) over the administration of his estate and the validity of the will.

• Lorenzo N. Llorente was an enlisted serviceman of the United States Navy from 1927 to 1957 and became a naturalized American citizen on November 30, 1943.
• Lorenzo married Paula T. Llorente on February 22, 1937, before a parish priest in Nabua, Camarines Sur.
• Upon the liberation of the Philippines in 1945, Lorenzo discovered that Paula was pregnant and living in an adulterous relationship with his brother, Ceferino Llorente; she gave birth to Crisologo Llorente on December 4, 1945, registered as illegitimate.
• On February 2, 1946, Lorenzo and Paula executed a notarized written agreement suspending family allowances, agreeing to dissolve their marital union judicially, and settling conjugal property separately; Lorenzo agreed not to prosecute Paula for adultery.
• On November 16, 1951, Lorenzo filed for divorce with the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego; Paula was represented by counsel and actively participated.
• On November 27, 1951, the California court issued an interlocutory judgment of divorce, which became final on December 4, 1952.
• On January 16, 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila; they lived together as husband and wife for twenty-five years until Lorenzo's death, producing three children: Raul, Luz, and Beverly.
• On March 13, 1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament bequeathing all his real and personal properties exclusively to Alicia and their three children, designating Alicia as sole executor.
• The will was probated by the RTC on January 24, 1984, while Lorenzo was still alive; Lorenzo died on June 11, 1985.
• Paula filed a petition for letters of administration claiming she was the surviving spouse and that the will encroached on her legitime and conjugal share.
• Alicia filed a petition for the issuance of letters testamentary in the testate proceeding.

• Paula contended that she was Lorenzo's surviving spouse because the divorce decree obtained in California was void and inapplicable in the Philippines, citing Tenchavez v. Escaño.
• She argued that Lorenzo's marriage to Alicia was void ab initio as bigamous, rendering Alicia a mere paramour who cannot inherit under Article 739(1) of the Civil Code.
• She asserted that the will was intrinsically invalid as it disposed of the entire estate to Alicia and her children, encroaching on Paula's legitime and her one-half share in the conjugal property.
• She claimed that the Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction when it issued the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.
• She argued that Article 144 of the Civil Code (applied by the CA) had been repealed by Articles 253 and 147 of the Family Code.

• Alicia argued that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo (a US citizen) was valid under his national law and should be recognized in the Philippines under the nationality principle.
• She maintained that she was the legal wife of Lorenzo and entitled to letters testamentary as the designated executor of the will.
• She claimed entitlement to the estate as the surviving spouse and as the mother of Lorenzo's children.
• Alternatively, she argued that she was a co-owner of properties acquired during their twenty-five years of cohabitation under Article 144 of the Civil Code.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction over the case when it issued the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the foreign divorce obtained by Lorenzo N. Llorente (a naturalized American citizen) from Paula T. Llorente is valid and recognizable in the Philippines.
  • Whether the marriage between Lorenzo and Alicia F. Llorente is valid.
  • Whether the will of Lorenzo N. Llorente is intrinsically valid and who are entitled to inherit from his estate.
  • Whether Alicia is a co-owner of properties acquired during her cohabitation with Lorenzo under Article 144 of the Civil Code.

• Procedural:
  • The Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the procedural issues raised, having resolved the case on the substantive merits regarding the foreign divorce and succession.
• Substantive:
  • The foreign divorce obtained by Lorenzo from Paula is valid and recognizable in the Philippines. As a naturalized American citizen at the time of the divorce, Lorenzo was governed by his national law, not Philippine law, under Article 15 of the Civil Code. The Court cited Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., Quita v. Court of Appeals, and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera to establish that aliens may obtain divorces abroad provided they are valid according to their national law. The ruling in Tenchavez v. Escaño (which voids foreign divorces between Filipino citizens) is inapplicable because Lorenzo was no longer a Filipino citizen.
  • The intrinsic validity of Lorenzo's will and the determination of successional rights are governed by his national law (Article 16, Civil Code). The Court emphasized that there is no "one American law" and the national law refers to the law of the specific state of which the decedent was a resident. The trial court must receive evidence and proof of this foreign law.
  • The formal validity of the will is governed by Philippine law (Article 17, Civil Code) since it was executed in the Philippines; the will was duly probated as to its form.
  • The Court rejected the application of the renvoi doctrine by the lower courts, noting there was no showing that New York or California law required referring back to Philippine law.
  • The Court reversed the CA's application of Article 144 of the Civil Code (co-ownership), as the determination of property relations depends on the validity of the marriage and the divorce, which must first be resolved under foreign law.
  • The case was remanded to the trial court for determination of the intrinsic validity of the will and the parties' successional rights under Lorenzo's national law.

• Nationality Principle (Article 15, Civil Code) — Laws relating to family rights, status, condition, and legal capacity bind Filipino citizens even abroad; conversely, aliens are governed by their own national law. The Court applied this to hold that Lorenzo, as a US citizen, could validly obtain a divorce under American law, which should be recognized in the Philippines.
• National Law on Succession (Article 16, Civil Code) — Intestate and testamentary succession, including the order of succession, amount of successional rights, and intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, are regulated by the national law of the decedent, regardless of the location of the property. The Court applied this to require proof of American law to determine the validity of the will and the shares of the heirs.
• Renvoi Doctrine — A doctrine where a court, in applying foreign law, refers back to the law of the decedent's domicile or nationality. The Court noted that the lower courts incorrectly applied this doctrine without proof that American law (specifically New York or California law) required such reference back to Philippine law.
• Comity — The recognition given by one state to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another state. The Court recognized the foreign divorce as a matter of comity, provided it was valid under the national law of the alien spouse.

• "Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad." (Article 15, Civil Code)
• "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." (Article 16, Civil Code)
• "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." (Article 17, Civil Code)
• "aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law." (Citing Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.)
• "There is no such thing as one American law. The 'national law' indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to general American law. There is no such law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United States. Each State of the union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in force only within the State."

• Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 (1985) — Established that aliens may obtain divorces abroad valid according to their national law, and only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces.
• Quita v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 406 (1998) — Reiterated that once proven the respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce, the ruling in Van Dorn applies.
• Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, 174 SCRA 653 (1989) — Recognized the divorce obtained by a foreign national in his country under the nationality principle.
• Tenchavez v. Escaño, 122 Phil. 752 (1965) — Distinguished; held inapplicable because it applies only to foreign divorces between Filipino citizens, whereas Lorenzo was already an American citizen.
• Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher, 110 Phil. 686 (1961) — Cited for the rule that foreign laws do not prove themselves and must be alleged and proved.
• In Re: Estate of Edward Christensen / Aznar v. Helen Garcia, 117 Phil. 96 (1963) — Cited to establish that "national law" for Americans refers to the law of the specific state of residence, not a general American law.
• Bellis v. Bellis, 126 Phil. 726 (1967) — Cited to establish that Congress did not intend to extend the system of legitimes to the succession of foreign nationals, leaving successional rights to the decedent's national law.

• Article 15, Civil Code — Provides that laws relating to family rights, status, condition, and legal capacity bind Filipino citizens even abroad, implying aliens are bound by their own national law.
• Article 16, Civil Code — Provides that intestate and testamentary succession, including intrinsic validity, are regulated by the national law of the decedent.
• Article 17, Civil Code — Provides that forms and solemnities of wills are governed by the laws of the country where executed.
• Article 739(1), Civil Code — Mentioned by the lower courts regarding donations between persons living in adultery (paramours), but rejected by the Supreme Court in favor of applying foreign law.
• Article 144, Civil Code — Applied by the Court of Appeals regarding co-ownership of property acquired during cohabitation without marriage, but reversed by the Supreme Court.
• Article 335(3), Civil Code — Cited by the trial court regarding the prohibition on adoption by a married person without the other spouse's consent, affecting the status of Raul and Luz.
• Family Code, Articles 147 and 253 — Cited by petitioner Paula arguing that Article 144 of the Civil Code was repealed.