7 Llorente vs CA

345 SCRA 59

Doctrine: The Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid
according to their national law. Only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorces.

Facts:
 Deceased Lorenzo Llorente was an enlisted serviceman in the US Navy who was married
to Paula Llorente, herein petitioner.
 Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo became a US citizen and after the war
has ended, he went back to the Philippines to visit his wife. During his visit, he
discovered that Paula and his brother were having an affair.
 Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her, even suspending his support and
would soon file a divorce in the state of California in US.
 The divorce decree became final and Lorenzo remarried again, with a woman named
Alicia. Alicia had no knowledge however of the first marriage. Lorenzo executed a will
and gave all his property to Alicia and their three children.
 However, during the probate of his will, RTC ruled that Lorenzo’s marriage with Alicia is
void because the divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void and
inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage he contracted with Alicia
Fortunato on is likewise void. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Issue: Whether or not Lorenzo’s divorce abroad should be recognized in the Philippines. YES.

Ruling:

Article 15 of the Civil Code provides, 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.

In this case, it is undisputed by Paula that Lorenzo became an American citizen in 1943. Hence,
when he obtained the divorce decree in 1952, he is already an American citizen. Since Lorenzo
was no longer a Filipino, Philippine laws relating to family rights, duties, or status are no longer
applicable to him. Therefore, the divorce decree he obtained abroad must be respected. The rule
is: aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.

Regarding on the issue of Lorenzo’s last will and testament, it must be respected because he is
an alien and is not covered by our laws on succession. However, since the will was submitted to
our courts for probate, then the case was remanded to the lower court where the foreign law
must be alleged in order to prove the validity of the will.
 26 Matubis vs Praxedes
109 Phil 789

Doctrine: Having consented to the concubinage, an innocent spouse cannot claim legal
separation anymore.

Facts:

 Socorro Matubis and Zoilo Praxedes were married but they agreed to live separately
from each other, which status remained unchanged until the present.
 They also agreed that they are in an open relationship meaning they can get any mate
without any interference by any of the parties and to file a case against them, or a suit
arising from said separation. Additionally, they do not receive support from each other
anymore.
 Praxedes began cohabiting with one Asuncion Rebulado and they had a child, who was
recorded as the child of Praxedes. They were known to be as husband and wife in their
community.
 After the trial, the court rendered that the acts of the defendants constituted
concubinage. However, it dismissed the case based on the following grounds:
o The present action was filed out of time and for that reason the action is barred
o The plaintiff has consented to the commission of concubinage by her husband

Issue: Whether or not Matubis consented to the commission of concubinage by her

husband based on their agreement. YES.

Ruling:

Article 100 of the New Civil Code specifically provides that legal separation may be claimed only
by the innocent spouse, provided the latter has not condoned or consented to the adultery or
concubinage committed by the other spouse. In this case, the plaintiff has consented to the
commission of concubinage by her husband. Her consent is clear from the following stipulation:

“(b) That both of us is free to get any mate and live with as husband and wife without any
interference by any of us, nor either of us can prosecute the other for adultery or concubinage
or any other crime or suit arising from our separation.”

This stipulation is an unbridled license that gave her husband to commit concubinage. The
condonation and consent here are not only implied but expressed, and having condoned and or
consented in writing, the plaintiff is now undeserving of the court's sympathy. Having consented
to the concubinage, the plaintiff cannot claim legal separation.