VAN DORN VS. ROMILLO Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.

FACTS: Petitioner Filipino Citizen Private Respondent US Citizen Married in Hongkong Resided in the Philippines Begot 2 children Got divorced in Nevada, US Petitioner re-married in Nevada to Theodore Van Dorn. Private respondent filed a suit against the petitioners business claiming that it is a conjugal property and he be given the right to manage the business. However, petitioner moved to dismiss the petition for the private respondent together with the petitioner, in their divorce proceeding, disclosed that they had no community property. Petition to dismiss was denied for the said property was situated in the Philippines and divorce decree has no bearing in the case.

PILAPIL VS. IBAY-SOMERA Special Civic Action for Cetiorari and Prohibition. FACTS: Petitioner - Filipina, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil Private Respondent - German, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, German Got married in Federal Republic of Germany Rerided in Malate, Manila 1 child After 3 years of marriage, Erich file a divorce proceeding against Imelda before the Schoneberg Local Court claiming that they have been living apart for almost a year. Petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property on the RTC of Manila. Divorce decree was granted and custody over the child went to the mother. Five months after the divorce, the respondent file two cases of adultery, which allegedly happen during the marriage. Investigation was dismissed for lack of evidence. However, upon review, the respondent city fiscal approved a resolution for the filing of the two complaints of adultery against Imelda Pilapil. The petitioner refused to be arraigned and prayed for a TRO, seeking annulment of the order on the grounds that the respondent does not qualify as an offended spouse. LEGAL ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent has the right to sue the petitioner on the case of adultery. RULING: No prosecution for adultery can be commenced except on the complaint of the husband or wife. Since the divorce decree is binding to all persons under its jurisdiction, the private respondent does not qualify as an offended spouse thus the complaint for adultery shall be deemed null and void. Under Art. 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. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in

the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent has ceased to be the husband of the petitioner and has no legal standing to commence adultery case. Petitioners motion to quash is SET ASIDE and another one entered DISMIISING the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The TRO in the issued case is hereby made permanent.

LLORENTE VS. COURT OF APPEALS Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals modifying that of the RTC, declaring Alicia Llorente as co-owners of whatever property she and the deceased Lorenzo N. Llorente acquired during the 25 years they lived as husband and wife. FACTS: Paula and Lorenzo were married before a parish priest in Nabua, Camarines Sur. Lorenzo, being a US NAVY SERVICEMAN, departed for the US for the Pacific War. After some time, he was admitted to US Citizenship and a cert. of Naturalization. Lorenzo went back to the Philippines only to find out that her wife has been living-in with his brother Ceferino and his wife is already pregnant. Both drew out a written agreement which contained specific terms regarding their situation. Lorenzo returned to the US and filed a divorce and was granted a divorce decree. Lorenzo then came back to the Philippines, re-married to Alicia F. Llorente, the petitioner. However, Alicia did not have any knowledge of the first marriage. They lived as husband and wife for 25 years and was blessed with 3 children. Lorenzo executed a last will and testament and file for its probate and allowance. However, the trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the testator was still alive. The trial court admitted the will to probate but before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died. Paula, Lorenzos first wife, filed a petition for letters of administration over the latters estate. She then contended

LEGAL ISSUE/S: Whether or not private respondent, who is a US citizen, have a right to demand rights over the alleged conjugal property with the petitioner. RULING: With the degree of divorce being binding to the private respondent, he has extinguished his rights as well as a right to sue over conjugal assets being the former husband of the petitioner. Although divorce is contrary to local law and public policy, the respondent, under the laws of his home country, will no longer be considered as the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner, under Art. 109 of the Civil Code, is still subject to her obligations as the wife of the respondent. However, the said Art. was deemed unjust by the court and if justice was sought by the petitioner, being a Filipino citizen, she must be freed of all the obligations she still have for her former husband. Thus, petition to dismiss was GRANTED.

that disposing of Lorenzos property, which they acquired during the first marriage, in favor of Alicia, the second wife, would trespass her right to share of the conjugal property. The court found that the divorce decree granted to Lorenzo is void and inapplicable in the Philippines rendering his second marriage likewise void. Alicia, although stated in the testament, is not entitled to any share of Lorenzos estate. Paula, on the other hand, will be declared as conjugal partner and entitled to share of the estate. However, Alicia Llorente, being a primary compulsory heir, will be entitled also to 1/3 of of the estate, and her children deemed as illegitimate will have 1/3 share of the estate from which should be divided equally. Paula the filed a motion for reconsideration.

LEGAL ISSUE/S: Whether or not the divorce decree was valid. Whether or not the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from him. Whether or not the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required. RULING: The Court, having failed to apply the doctrines stated in the Van Dorn v. Romillo, Quita v. Court of Appeals and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, must reverse its decision. With this, the divorce decree from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of social harmony. Congress specifically left the amount of successional right to the decedents national law. The COURT remand the cases to the court of origin for determination of the parties successional rights allowing proof of foreign law with instructions that the trial court shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch to settle the estate of the deceased within the framework of the Rules of Court. PETITION GRANTED!