FE D. QUITA VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
GR 124862; 22 December 1998
SC 2nd Division; Bellosillo, J.

FACTS:
Fe Quita (FE) was married to Arturo Padlan (ARTURO) on 18 May 1941, but they were not
blessed with children. Fe, then became an American citizen and later on divorced Arturo in San
Francisco, California in 19 July 1950. The decree was granted on 23 July 1954. Subsequently
she married Felix Tupaz that also ended up in divorce to marry another man.

Apparently, Arturo married Blandina Dandan (BLANDINA), on April 1947, and had five children
with her, and also had another child with someone else.

In April 1972, Arturo died. During the intestate proceedings of Arturo’s estate, Blandina asserted
that she was the surviving spouse of Arturo that was opposed by Fe arguing that under
Philippine Laws, Arturo was still married to her despite the divorce decree she had secured from
San Francisco and having to have married twice thereafter.

The lower court decided in favor the heirship of the children of Arturo and Blandina, and to Fe
as the surviving spouse of Arturo, saying that the divorce decree obtained by Fe cannot be
recognized by Philippine, citing Tenchavez vs. Escano (No. L-19671, 29 November 1965).

On Appeal, the decision was reversed.

ISSUE:
Whether Blandina is the surviving spouse of Arturo?

HELD:
Blandina is not the surviving spouse of Arturo.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
The court citing Van Dorn vs. Romillo (G.R. No. 68470, 8 October 1985), that in as much as
Philippine Courts does not allow the Filipino spouse to remarry, the decree is recognized by the
same, and it is on this very same vein that the law frees the said spouse from his/her marital
obligations from the divorcing spouse and further it prevents the latter from invoking Philippine
Laws with regard to their conjugal property in the country. Therefore, since this case pertains to
the intestacy of Arturo, Fe cannot become his surviving spouse.

Blandina can neither be Arturo’s surviving spouse, their marriage being bigamous.