Quita vs. Court of Appeals

A controversy as to who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person must be heard and decided as in ordinary cases pursuant to Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, and the trial court cannot perfunctorily resolve heirship without conducting a hearing when a material factual issue — such as the surviving spouse's citizenship at the time a foreign divorce was obtained — remains unresolved and could determine the applicability of the rule in Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr. as opposed to Tenchavez vs. Escaño.

Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipino citizens, were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. Their marriage was childless. Quita eventually sued for divorce in San Francisco, California, and obtained a final judgment on 23 July 1954, after which she remarried twice more in the United States. Arturo died intestate on 16 April 1972, leaving an estate that became the subject of settlement proceedings. Blandina Dandan, who claimed to be Arturo's surviving spouse, and six children surnamed Padlan opposed the administration petition. The central legal question turned on whether Quita's foreign divorce was recognizable in the Philippines, which depended on her citizenship at the time the divorce was obtained — an issue governed by the distinction between Tenchavez vs. Escaño (foreign divorce between Filipino citizens not recognized) and Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr. (foreign divorce obtained by aliens may be recognized if valid under their national law).

Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipino citizens, were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. Their marriage produced no children. Over time, their relationship deteriorated, and Quita sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. She submitted in the divorce proceedings a private writing dated 19 July 1950 evidencing their agreement to live separately and to settle their conjugal properties. On 23 July 1954, she obtained a final judgment of divorce. Three weeks later, she married a certain Felix Tupaz in the same locality, but that marriage also ended in divorce. She then married for a third time, to a certain Wernimont, still in the U.S.A.

On 16 April 1972, Arturo died intestate. On 31 August 1972, Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the issuance of letters of administration over Arturo's estate in favor of the Philippine Trust Company. Blandina Dandan, also referred to as Blandina Padlan, claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo, together with Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida, and Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named as the children of Arturo, opposed the petition and prayed for the appointment of Atty. Leonardo Casaba instead. The appointment was resolved in favor of the latter, who was later replaced by Higino Castillon upon motion of the oppositors. 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 Arturo, intervened.

On 7 October 1987, petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of heirs and distribution of the estate. At the scheduled hearing on 23 October 1987, private respondent, the six Padlan children, and Ruperto failed to appear despite due notice. The trial court required the submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children within ten days, after which the issue on declaration of heirs would be considered submitted for resolution, with or without the documents. The prescribed period lapsed without the required documents being submitted.

The trial court, invoking Tenchavez vs. Escaño, disregarded the divorce between petitioner and Arturo, holding that a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the Civil Code was not entitled to recognition. It expressed the view that their marriage subsisted until Arturo's death in 1972. It also refused to consider valid their extrajudicial settlement of conjugal properties for lack of judicial approval. The trial court found no showing that a marriage existed between private respondent and Arturo, nor that the alleged Padlan children had been acknowledged by the deceased as his children with her. As regards Ruperto, it found that he was a brother of Arturo. On 27 November 1987, only petitioner and Ruperto were declared the intestate heirs, with equal adjudication of the net hereditary estate ordered in their favor.

On motion for reconsideration, Blandina and the Padlan children were allowed to present proofs of recognition of the children by the deceased. Records of birth showed that the children, except Alexis who was recognized as an illegitimate child, had been acknowledged as Arturo's legitimate children. On 15 February 1988, partial reconsideration was granted, declaring the Padlan children, except Alexis, entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and petitioner to the other half. Private respondent was not declared an heir; although the records of birth stated that she and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947, that marriage was void because it was celebrated during the existence of his prior marriage to petitioner.

Blandina and the Padlan children appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning as error the trial court's decision of the case without a hearing, in violation of Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court. The appellate court found this ground sufficient to sustain the appeal. On 11 September 1995, it declared null and void the trial court's 27 November 1987 decision and 15 February 1988 order, and directed remand for further proceedings. On 18 April 1996, it denied reconsideration. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, private respondent furnished the Court with a transcript of stenographic notes from a hearing on 5 May 1995 before another trial court, where petitioner answered that she had been an American citizen since 1954 — the same year she obtained the divorce from Arturo. Petitioner did not file a reply memorandum to address this issue.

• No Need for Remand: Petitioner insisted that there was no need to remand the case because, first, no legal or factual issue obtained for resolution either as to the heirship of the Padlan children or as to the decedent, and, second, the issue as to who between petitioner and private respondent is the proper heir of the decedent is one of law which can be resolved in the present petition based on established facts and admissions of the parties.
• Subsisting Marriage: Petitioner argued that Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained legally married to her in spite of the divorce they obtained, relying on the ruling in Tenchavez vs. Escaño.

• Violation of Procedural Rule: Respondent argued that the trial court decided the case without a hearing, in violation of Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, which provides that if there is a controversy as to who are the lawful heirs or distributive shares, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
• Citizenship as Material Issue: Respondent raised the issue of petitioner's citizenship, invoking Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr. that aliens may obtain divorces abroad which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. She stressed that petitioner's citizenship was relevant and prayed that the case be set for hearing.
• Forum Shopping and Contempt: Respondent moved to declare petitioner and her counsel in contempt of court and to dismiss the present petition for forum shopping, alleging that petitioner had filed petitions before three trial courts concerning properties belonging to the estate of Arturo.

• Remand for Hearing: Whether the case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings under Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court.
• Citizenship as Factual Issue: Whether petitioner's citizenship at the time she obtained the foreign divorce is a material factual issue requiring reception of evidence by the trial court.
• Private Respondent's Heirship: Whether private respondent Blandina Dandan may be declared an heir of Arturo Padlan.
• Forum Shopping: Whether petitioner committed forum shopping by filing the present petition while petitions for reconstitution of titles were pending before other trial courts.

• Remand for Hearing: Yes. A controversy remained as to who was the legitimate surviving spouse of Arturo, requiring a hearing under Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court; the trial court perfunctorily resolved the issue without receiving evidence.
• Citizenship as Factual Issue: Yes. Petitioner's citizenship at the time of the divorce was a material factual issue that the trial court overlooked; if she was no longer a Filipino citizen, Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr. would apply and the foreign divorce could be recognized.
• Private Respondent's Heirship: No. Private respondent's marriage to Arturo was bigamous and void from the beginning under Articles 80 and 83 of the Civil Code, as it was celebrated during the subsistence of his prior marriage to petitioner; she cannot be a surviving spouse entitled to inherit.
• Forum Shopping: No. The present petition concerns declaration of heirship while the other petitions concern issuance of new owner's duplicate copies of titles; there is no identity of causes of action, subject matter, or issue.

• Remand for Hearing: Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court provides that if there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. While petitioner correctly noted that no dispute existed as to the right of the six Padlan children to inherit — they were duly acknowledged and petitioner herself recognized them as heirs — a controversy remained as to who was the legitimate surviving spouse of Arturo. The trial court, after the other parties failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on 23 October 1987, simply issued an order requiring submission of records of birth and then deemed the issue submitted for resolution. The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the truth of the matters in issue with the aid of documentary and testimonial evidence and the arguments of the parties. The lower court perfunctorily settled petitioner's claim in her favor by merely applying Tenchavez vs. Escaño without resolving the factual question of her citizenship at the time of the divorce.

• Citizenship as Factual Issue: The trial court's finding on citizenship pertained solely to the time of marriage, not to the time of divorce. Private respondent raised the issue of petitioner's citizenship in her comment to petitioner's motion, in her motion for reconsideration, and in her appeal, invoking Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr. The transcript of stenographic notes from a hearing on 5 May 1995 before another trial court showed petitioner answering that she had been an American citizen since 1954 — the same year the divorce was obtained. Petitioner never squarely addressed this issue, failing even to file a reply memorandum. The doubt persisted as to whether she was still a Filipino citizen when the divorce was decreed. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of the divorce, Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo. This was a factual issue requiring hearings to be conducted by the trial court.

• Private Respondent's Heirship: Private respondent and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the prior marriage of petitioner and Arturo was subsisting, resulting in a bigamous marriage void from the beginning under Articles 80 and 83 of the Civil Code. She is not a surviving spouse that can inherit from him, as this status presupposes a legitimate relationship. This issue was already resolved by the trial court and need not be revisited on remand; the reception of evidence on remand should be limited to the hereditary rights of petitioner as the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan.

• Forum Shopping: For forum shopping to exist, the actions must involve the same transactions and same essential facts and circumstances, with identical causes of action, subject matter, and issue. The present petition deals with declaration of heirship while the subsequent petitions filed before three trial courts concern the issuance of new owner's duplicate copies of titles of certain properties belonging to the estate of Arturo. There is no reason to declare the existence of forum shopping.

• Section 1, Rule 90, Rules of Court — Hearing Required in Heirship Controversies — When a controversy exists before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. The Court applied this rule to require remand where the trial court perfunctorily resolved heirship without conducting a hearing on the material factual issue of the surviving spouse's citizenship at the time of a foreign divorce.

• Tenchavez vs. Escaño — Foreign Divorce Between Filipino Citizens — A foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the Civil Code is not entitled to recognition as valid in Philippine jurisdiction. The trial court applied this doctrine, but the Supreme Court noted that its applicability depended on whether petitioner was still a Filipino citizen at the time of the divorce — a fact that was never established.

• Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr. — Foreign Divorce by Aliens — Aliens may obtain divorces abroad which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. The Court held that if petitioner was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of the divorce, this doctrine would apply and could divest her of hereditary rights as surviving spouse.

• Forum Shopping — Elements — For forum shopping to exist, the actions must involve the same transactions and same essential facts and circumstances, with identical causes of action, subject matter, and issue. The Court found no forum shopping where one case concerned declaration of heirship and the others concerned reconstitution of titles.

• "If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases." — This passage reproduces Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, the procedural rule that controlled the disposition and mandated remand for a full hearing.

• "Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the materiality of petitioner's citizenship at the time of the divorce and the consequence of applying Van Dorn instead of Tenchavez.

• "The reception of evidence by the trial court should he limited to the hereditary rights of petitioner as the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan." — This passage defines the scope of the remand, confining further proceedings to the single unresolved issue of petitioner's hereditary rights and excluding any reconsideration of private respondent's already-resolved claim.

• Tenchavez vs. Escaño, 15 SCRA 355 (1965) — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens obtained after the effectivity of the Civil Code is not recognized in the Philippines. The trial court applied it, but the Supreme Court found its applicability uncertain because petitioner's citizenship at the time of the divorce was never established.
• Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr., 139 SCRA 139 (1985) — Followed in principle; cited for the rule that aliens may obtain divorces abroad that may be recognized in the Philippines if valid under their national law. The Court held this doctrine could apply if petitioner was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of the divorce, warranting a hearing.
• Professional Regulation Commission vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117817, 9 July 1998 — Cited for the elements of forum shopping: same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances, and identical causes of action, subject matter, and issue. Applied to reject the forum shopping charge.

• Section 1, Rule 90, Rules of Court — Requires that controversies as to who are the lawful heirs or distributive shares be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. Applied to require remand where the trial court resolved heirship without a hearing on the material issue of petitioner's citizenship at the time of the foreign divorce.
• Articles 80 and 83, Civil Code — Article 80 governs marriages void from the beginning, including bigamous marriages; Article 83 prohibits marriage before the termination of a prior marriage. Applied to hold private respondent's marriage to Arturo void as bigamous, barring her from inheriting as a surviving spouse.
• Article 998, Civil Code — Provides that if a widow or widower survives with illegitimate children, the widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the illegitimate children to the other half. Applied in the partial reconsideration granting the Padlan children (except Alexis) one-half of the estate.
• Article 1001, Civil Code — Provides that should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters to the other half. Applied in the original declaration of heirs before partial reconsideration.
• Articles 190 and 191, Civil Code — Govern separation of property and dissolution of conjugal partnership during marriage, requiring judicial approval. Applied to invalidate the extrajudicial settlement of conjugal properties for lack of judicial approval.

Puno, Mendoza, and Martinez, JJ., concurred.