9/23/2018 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 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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
9/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

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 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.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
9/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

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 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-

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
9/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

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 386) was
2
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 extrajudicial
settlement3
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, it found that
4
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 the net
hereditary
5
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.
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 made in their respective records of birth. Thus on
6

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
9/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
6
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 of
7
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 the 8remand of the case to the trial court for further
9
proceedings. 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 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.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
9/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

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 and petitioner 10
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

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 remained12legally 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 petitioner was relevant
13
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
national14law. She prayed therefore that the case be set for
hearing. Petitioner opposed the motion but15 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 16
citizens and were married in the Philippines.” It
maintained that their divorce obtained in 1954 in San

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
9/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

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

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.
Respondent again raised17
in her appeal the issue on
petitioner’s citizenship; it18 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 was an American citizen 19
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

____________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
9/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300
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 20him 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 and21that 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 also22
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.
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.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
9/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 300

     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])
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 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016602764b325933fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9