6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quita vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 124862. December 22, 1998.

FE D. QUITA, petitioner,
**
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
BLANDINA DANDAN, respondents.

Actions; Settlement of Estates; Succession; 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.—We cannot
sustain petitioner. The provision relied upon

_________

* SECOND DIVISION.

** The name of private respondent Blandina Dandan appears as Blandina Padlan in the
proceedings before the lower courts.

407

VOL. 300, DECEMBER 22, 1998 407

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

by respondent court is clear: 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.
Same; Same; Same; Husband and Wife; Conflict of Laws; Divorce; If
there is a question as to whether a wife was still a Filipino citizen at the
time of her divorce from her husband—the decedent—the trial court should
conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship.—We note that in her
comment to petitioner’s motion private respondent raised, among others, the
issue as to whether petitioner was still entitled to inherit from the decedent
considering that she had secured a divorce in the U.S.A. and in fact had

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

twice remarried. She also invoked the above quoted procedural rule. To this,
petitioner replied that Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained legally
married to her in spite of the divorce they obtained. Reading between the
lines, the implication is that petitioner was no longer a Filipino citizen at the
time of her divorce from Arturo. This should have prompted the trial court
to conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship. 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. Instead, the lower court perfunctorily
settled her claim in her favor by merely applying the ruling in Tenchavez v.
Escaño.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law; Once proved that a wife was no longer a
Filipino citizen at the time of her divorce from her husband, then she could
very well lose her right to inherit from the latter.—Then in private
respondent’s motion to set aside and/or reconsider the lower court’s decision
she stressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of the
ruling in Van Dorn v. 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 prayed therefore that the case be set for
hearing. Petitioner opposed the motion but failed to squarely address the
issue on her citizenship. The trial court did not grant private respondent’s
prayer for a hearing but proceeded to resolve her motion with the finding
that both petitioner and Arturo were “Filipino citizens and were married in
the Philippines.” It main-

408

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

tained that their divorce obtained in 1954 in San Francisco, California,

U.S.A., was not valid in Philippine jurisdiction. We deduce that the finding
on their citizenship pertained solely to the time of their marriage as the trial
court was not supplied with a basis to determine petitioner’s citizenship at
the time of their divorce. The doubt persisted as to whether she was still a
Filipino citizen when their divorce was decreed. The trial court must have
overlooked the materiality of this aspect. 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.
Same; Same; Same; Forum Shopping; There is no forum shopping
where one petition deals with declaration of heirship while the subsequent
petitions filed before other courts concern the issuance of new owner’s

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

duplicate copies of titles of certain properties belonging to the estate of the

decedent.—As regards the motion of private respondent for petitioner and
her counsel to be declared in contempt of court and that the present petition
be dismissed for forum shopping, the same lacks merit. For forum shopping
to exist the actions must involve the same transactions and same essential
facts and circumstances. There must also be identical causes of action,
subject matter and issue. The present petition deals with declaration of
heirship while the subsequent petitions filed before the three (3) trial courts
concern the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copies of titles of certain
properties belonging to the estate of Arturo. Obviously, there is no reason to
declare the existence of forum shopping.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Puruganan, Chato, Tan and Geronimo Law Offices for
petitioner.
Balgos & Perez Law Offices for private respondent.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

FE D. QUITA and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in

the Philippines on 18 May 1941. They were not

409

VOL. 300, DECEMBER 22, 1998 409

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

however blessed with children. Somewhere along the way their

relationship soured. Eventually Fe 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 from each other and a settlement of
their conjugal properties. On 23 July 1954 she obtained a final
judgment of divorce. Three (3) weeks thereafter 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. He left no will. On 31 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 Blandina Dandan (also referred to as
Blandina Padlan), claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo
Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and
Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named in the petition as surviving
children of Arturo Padlan, opposed the petition and prayed for the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

appointment instead of Atty. Leonardo Cabasal, 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 op-positors (Blandina and the Padlan children) 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.
On 7 October 1987 petitioner moved for the immediate
declaration of heirs of the decedent and the distribution of his estate.
At the scheduled hearing on 23 October 1987, private respondent as
well as the six (6) Padlan children and Ruperto failed to appear
despite due notice. On the same day, the trial court required the
submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children within ten
(10) days from receipt thereof, after which, with or without the
documents, the issue on the declaration of heirs would be considered
submitted for resolu-

410

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

tion. The prescribed period lapsed without the required documents

being submitted. 1
The trial court invoking Tenchavez v. Escaño which held that “a
foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after
the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 2
386) was not
entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction,” disregarded the
divorce between petitioner and Arturo. Consequently, it expressed
the view that their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo in
1972. Neither did it consider valid their extrajudicial3 settlement of
conjugal properties due to lack of judicial approval. On the other
hand, it opined that there was no showing that marriage existed
between private respondent and Arturo, much less was it shown that
the alleged Padlan children had been acknowledged by the deceased
as his children with her. As regards Ruperto, 4it found that he was a
brother of Arturo. On 27 November 1987 only petitioner and
Ruperto were declared the intestate heirs of Arturo. Accordingly,
equal adjudication of the5 net hereditary estate was ordered in favor
of the two intestate heirs.
On motion for reconsideration, Blandina and the Padlan children
were allowed to present proofs that the recognition of

___________

1 No. L-19671, 29 November 1965, 15 SCRA 355.

2 Id., p. 367.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

3 Then Art. 190 of the Civil Code provided that in the absence of an express
declaration in the marriage settlement, the separation of property between spouses
during the marriage shall not take place save in virtue of a judicial order. Quite in
relation thereto, then Art. 191, par. 4 of the same Code provided that the husband and
the wife may agree upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the
marriage, subject to judicial approval.
4 Decision penned by Judge Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr. of RTC-Br. 105, Quezon City;
Appendix “A” of Brief for the Oppositors-Appellants; CA Rollo, p. 15.
5 Article 1001 of the 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 or their children to the other half.

411

VOL. 300, DECEMBER 22, 1998 411

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

the children by the deceased as his legitimate children, except Alexis

who was recognized as his illegitimate child, had been made6 in their
respective records of birth. Thus on 15 February 1988 partial
reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the
exception of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion
7
of Ruperto Padlan, and petitioner to the other half. Private
respondent was not declared an heir. Although it was stated in the
aforementioned records of birth that she and Arturo were married on
22 April 1947, their marriage was clearly void since it was
celebrated during the existence of his previous marriage to
petitioner.
In their appeal to the Court of Appeals, Blandina and her children
assigned as one of the errors allegedly committed by the trial court
the circumstance that the case was decided without a hearing, in
violation of Sec. 1, Rule 90, of the Rules of Court, which 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.
Respondent appellate court found this ground alone sufficient to
sustain the appeal; hence, on 11 September 1995 it declared null and
void the 27 November 1987 decision and 15 February 1988 order of
the trial court, and directed 8the remand of the case to the trial court
for further proceedings.
9
On 18 April 1996 it denied
reconsideration.

___________

6 Appendix “B” of Brief for the Oppositors-Appellants; See Note 4.

7 Article 998 of the Civil Code provides that if a widow or widower survives with
illegitimate children, such widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half of the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

inheritance, and the illegitimate children or their descendants, whether legitimate or

illegitimate, to the other half.
8 Decision penned by Justice Pacita Cañizares-Nye with the concurrence of
Justices Romeo J. Callejo, Jr. and Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis; Rollo, p. 39.
9 Id., p. 42.

412

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

Should this case be remanded to the lower court for further

proceedings? Petitioner insists that there is no need because, first, no
legal or factual issue obtains for resolution either as to the heirship
of the Padlan children or as to their respective shares in the intestate
estate of 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.
We cannot sustain petitioner. The provision relied upon by
respondent court is clear: 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.
We agree with petitioner that no dispute exists either as to the
right of the six (6) Padlan children to inherit from the decedent
because there are proofs that they have been duly acknowledged by
him and10 petitioner herself even recognizes them as heirs of Arturo
Padlan; nor as to their respective hereditary shares. But controversy
remains as to who is the legitimate surviving spouse of Arturo. The
trial court, after the parties other than petitioner failed to appear
during the scheduled hearing on 23 October 1987 of the motion for
immediate declaration of heirs and distribution of estate, simply
issued an order requiring the submission of the records of birth of
the Padlan children within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, after
which, with or without the documents, the issue on declaration of
heirs would be deemed submitted for resolution.
We note that in her comment to petitioner’s motion private
respondent raised, among others, the issue as to whether petitioner
was still entitled to inherit from the decedent considering that she
had secured a divorce in the U.S.A. and in fact had twice remarried.
She also invoked the above quoted

__________

10 Id., p. 180.

413

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

VOL. 300, DECEMBER 22, 1998 413

Quita vs. Court of Appeals
11
procedural rule. To this, petitioner replied that Arturo was a
Filipino and as such remained
12
legally married to her in spite of the
divorce they obtained. Reading between the lines, the implication is
that petitioner was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her
divorce from Arturo. This should have prompted the trial court to
conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship. 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. Instead, the
lower court perfunctorily settled her claim in her favor by merely
applying the ruling in Tenchavez v. Escaño.
Then in private respondent’s motion to set aside and/or
reconsider the lower court’s decision she stressed that the citizenship
of petitioner13 was relevant in the light of the ruling in Van Dorn v.
Romillo, Jr. that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to
their national
14
law. She prayed therefore that the case be set for
hearing. Petitioner opposed the motion 15
but failed to squarely
address the issue on her citizenship. The trial court did not grant
private respondent’s prayer for a hearing but proceeded to resolve
her motion with the finding that both petitioner and Arturo were 16
“Filipino citizens and were married in the Philippines.” It
maintained that their divorce obtained in 1954 in San Francisco,
California, U.S.A., was not valid in Philippine jurisdiction. We
deduce that the finding on their citizenship pertained solely to the
time of their marriage as the trial court was not supplied with a basis
to determine petitioner’s citizenship at the time of their divorce. The
doubt persisted as to whether she was still a Filipino citizen when
their divorce

____________

11 Rollo, p. 196.
12 CA Rollo, p. 29.
13 G.R. No. 68470, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 139.
14 CA Rollo, p. 30.
15 Record on Appeal, pp. 24-26.
16 Rollo, p. 206.

414

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

was decreed. The trial court must have overlooked the materiality of
this aspect. 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.
Respondent17
again raised in her appeal the issue on petitioner’s
citizenship;
18
it did not merit enlightenment however from
petitioner. In the present proceeding, petitioner’s citizenship is
brought anew to the fore by private respondent. She even furnishes
the Court with the transcript of stenographic notes taken on 5 May
1995 during the hearing for the reconstitution of the original of a
certain transfer certificate of title as well as the issuance of new
owner’s duplicate copy thereof before another trial court. When
asked whether she was19an American citizen petitioner answered that
she was since 1954. Significantly, the decree of divorce of
petitioner and Arturo was obtained in the same year. Petitioner
however did not bother to file a reply memorandum to erase the
uncertainty about her citizenship at the time of their divorce, a
factual issue requiring hearings to be conducted by the trial court.
Consequently, respondent appellate court did not err in ordering the
case returned to the trial court for further proceedings.
We emphasize however that the question to be determined by the
trial court should be limited only to the right of petitioner to inherit
from Arturo as his surviving spouse. 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

____________

17 Brief of Oppositors-Appellants, p. 13; CA Rollo, p. 15.

18 Brief of Appellee; Id., p. 17.
19 Rollo, pp. 225-226.

415

VOL. 300, DECEMBER 22, 1998 415

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

inherit from 20
him as this status presupposes a legitimate
relationship.
As regards the motion of private respondent for petitioner and her
counsel to be declared in contempt of court
21
and that the present
petition be dismissed for forum shopping, the same lacks merit. For
forum shopping to exist the actions must involve the same
transactions and same essential facts and circumstances. There22 must
also be identical causes of action, subject matter and issue. The
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

present petition deals with declaration of heirship while the

subsequent petitions filed before the three (3) trial courts concern the
issuance of new owner’s duplicate copies of titles of certain
properties belonging to the estate of Arturo. Obviously, there is no
reason to declare the existence of forum shopping.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of
respondent Court of Appeals ordering the remand of the case to the
court of origin for further proceedings and declaring null and void
its decision holding petitioner Fe D. Quita and Ruperto T. Padlan as
intestate heirs is AFFIRMED. The order of the appellate court
modifying its previous decision by granting one-half (1/2) of the net
hereditary estate to the Padlan children, namely, Claro, Ricardo,
Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, with the exception of Alexis, all
surnamed Padlan, instead of Arturo’s brother Ruperto Padlan, is
likewise AFFIRMED. The Court however emphasizes that the
reception of evidence by the trial court should be limited to the
hereditary rights of petitioner as the surviving spouse of Arturo
Padlan.
The motion to declare petitioner and her counsel in contempt of
court and to dismiss the present petition for forum shopping is
DENIED.

___________

20 Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the

Philippines, 1979 Ed., Vol. III, p. 264.
21 Rollo, pp. 129-132.
22 Professional Regulation Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117817, 9
July 1998.

416

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quita vs. Court of Appeals

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Mendoza and Martinez, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Notes.—American jurisprudence, on cases involving statutes in

that jurisdiction which are in pari materia with ours, yields the rule
that after a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer
has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders where the
statute provides that the innocent spouse shall have the exclusive
right to institute a prosecution for adultery. (Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera,
174 SCRA 653 [1989])

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills

which have been probated outside of the Philippines are as follows:
(1) the due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws;
(2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the
Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such
country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and
(5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of
wills. (Vda. de Perez vs. Tolete, 232 SCRA 722 [1994])

——o0o——

417

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8f7b5f32c99a58d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10