PAULA T. LLORENTE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and ALICIA F.

LLORENTE, Respondents.

Lorenzo N. Llorente, a US Navy enlisted serviceman, married petitioner Paula Llorente in 1937. Before
the Pacific War, he departed for the US and Paula stayed in the conjugal home. In 1943, he was admitted
to US citizenship and issued a Certificate of Naturalization. After the liberation of the Philippines in 1945,
Lorenzo was granted leave to visit his wife and discover his wife was pregnant with Ceferino Llorente. On
December 4, 1945, Paula gave birth to a boy named "Crisologo Llorente," but the child was not
legitimate.

Lorenzo and Paula signed an agreement in 1946, suspending family allowances, dissolved their marital
union, and agreed to separate peacefully. Paula voluntarily admitted her fault and voluntarily separated
from Lorenzo. In 1951, Lorenzo filed for divorce with the Superior Court of the State of California, and
Paula participated in the proceedings. The court found all allegations true and issued an interlocutory
judgment of divorce. Lorenzo returned to the Philippines and married Alicia F. Llorente in 1958, who did
not oppose the marriage or cohabitation.

Lorenzo and Alicia Fortuno lived together from 1958 to 1985, producing three children named Raul, Luz,
and Beverly. In 1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament, bequeathing all his property to Alicia
and their three children. The will included a residential house and lot in San Francisco, real properties in
Barangay Aro-Aldao, Paloyon, Barangay Baras, and Barangay Paloyon, and real properties in Quezon City
and Antipolo, Rizal.

Lorenzo's Last Will and Testament outlines his wishes for his wife Alicia R. Fortunato and his children to
inherit their respective shares in real and personal properties. The will designates her as the sole
executor and directs her to serve without bond. Lorenzo revokes all previous wills and wishes that no
relatives of his family would disturb his estate. In 1983, Lorenzo filed a petition for probate and allowed
Alicia to be appointed Special Administratrix of his estate. The trial court denied the motion, but the will
was duly executed. On June 11, 1985, Lorenzo passed away. Paula filed a petition for letters of
administration over Lorenzo's estate in her favor, arguing that she was Lorenzo's surviving spouse, the
property was acquired during their marriage, and Lorenzo's will disposed of all his property in favor of
Alicia and her children.

In 1985, Alicia filed a petition for letters testamentary in a testate proceeding. The trial court granted due
course to Paula's petition, which was published in the Bicol Star. The Regional Trial Court issued a joint
decision in 1987, denying Alicia's petition for letters testamentary and denying her share from the estate,
despite her relationship with Lorenzo becoming paramour under Art. 739.

The court deemed Paula Titular Llorente's petition meritorious and declared the will of Lorenzo Llorente
void. She is entitled as conjugal partner and primary compulsory heir, with one-third of the estate going
to her children Raul, Luz, and Beverly. Paula Llorente is appointed legal administrator of the estate and is
required to return a complete inventory within three months, pay debts, and discharge dividends. She
must also render a true and just account of her administration and perform court orders.
 The Issue

Stripping the petition of its legalese and sorting through the various arguments raised,
36 the issue is simple. Who are entitled to inherit from the late Lorenzo N. Llorente?

We do not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals. We remand the case to the
trial court for ruling on the intrinsic validity of the will of the deceased.

The late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen before his divorce, marriage, will execution,
and death, making issues arising from these incidents governed by foreign law. The Civil Code states that
family rights and duties are binding on citizens of the Philippines, even while living abroad. Real property
and intestate and testamentary succession are subject to the country's law, regardless of the property's
nature. Foreign laws cannot prove themselves in Philippine jurisdiction, and courts cannot take judicial
notice of them.

The Court of Appeals did not admit the foreign law, and instead called for the renvoi doctrine, which
refers to the decedent's domicile, Philippine law. The trial court stated New York's law was not
sufficiently proven, but also made the unproven statement that Philippine law applies when determining
the validity of Lorenzo's will. There is no one American law governing testamentary provisions, and New
York State law does not require the application of the renvoi doctrine. The trial court ruled that the will
was intrinsically invalid, leaving Alice and her children with nothing.

The Court of Appeals disregarded the will, declaring Alice entitled to half of the property she and
Lorenzo acquired during their cohabitation, applying Article 144 of the Philippines' Civil Code. This
disregard of the will's validity is fatal, especially considering the factual and legal circumstances. The
Court has held that only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces,
contrary to public policy and morality. In Quita v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that if the respondent
was no longer a Filipino citizen, the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable, potentially affecting the
petitioner's right to inherit.

The Court of Appeals has granted the petition and set aside the Regional Trial Court's decision. The Court
reverses the Regional Trial Court's decision and recognizes the decree of divorce granted to Lorenzo N.
Llorente. The Court orders the cases to the court of origin for determining the intrinsic validity of
Llorente's will and successional rights, allowing proof of foreign law.