PAULA LLORENTE VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
GR 124371; 23 November 2000
SC 1st Division; Pardo, J.

FACTS:
Lorenzo Llorente (LORENZO), a US Navy serviceman, married Paula on 22 February 1937.
The Second World War broke and left the Philippines. While in the US, Lorenzo became a US
citizen, and returned to the Philippines only after the said war ended. He discovered Paula with
child and the father to the same is his own brother.

Given this very das fate, Lorenzo refrained himself from filing any criminal case against Paula
and his brother and instead entered into an agreement with Paula that he they be peacefully
“separate,” suspended her benefits from the US Government, and that their property shall be
settled later in a separate agreement.

He returned to the US and divorced Paula; the latter being represented by an attorney-in-fact.
Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and married Alicia. Lorenzo and Alicia lived peacefully
as husband and wife, and were blessed with three children.

Then Lorenzo then made a last will and testament making Alicia and their children his
testamentary heirs. He then had the same probated ante mortem and appointed Alicia as
administratrix of his estate. The court denied the application of Alicia as administratrix as
Lorenzo was still alive however allowed the probate of the will. Lorenzon then died before the
termination of the proceedings.

Paula then filed for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor, and an opposition
to the heirship of Alicia and the latter’s children saying that their succession encroaches to her
legitime; her being the surviving spouse of Lorenzo.

Alicia filed for a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor in the probate
proceedings. However, the court gave due course to Paula’s arguments that the divorce decree
issued by the US court is not recognized in the Philippines; hence, denying the former’s petition.

Thereafter, the court declared that the will is intrinsically invalid and declared Paula as the
surviving spouse of Arturo and was appointed administratrix thereto. Alicia moved to reconsider
and was denied.

On appeal, the decision was modified making Alicia a co-owner of any property that was
acquired during her “cohabitation” with Arturo.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether Alicia is entitled to inherit from Lorenzo?
HELD:
The petition is granted:
• The decision of the CA is set aside;
• The decision of the probate court is reversed;
• It recognizes the validity of the divorce decree granted by the US court; and
• The case is remanded to court a quo to determine the intrinsic validity of the will (which
includes the issue at bar).

RATIO DECIDENDI:
It must be stressed that under Philippine Laws on Succession, the courts shall apply ‘lex
nationalii’ and not Philippine Laws automatically.

The divorce decree is valid. In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. the Court “held that owing to the
nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are
covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our
concept of public policy and morality. In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain
divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.

Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals, that once proven that
respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the
ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could “very well lose her right to
inherit” from him.
In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, we recognized the divorce obtained by the respondent in his country,
the Federal Republic of Germany. There, we stated that divorce and its legal effects may be
recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality
principle in our civil law on the status of persons.

For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed. 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.”