[G.R. No. 124371.

November 23, 2000]

PAULA T. LLORENTE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALICIA
F. LLORENTE, respondents.
FACTS:

Lorenzo Llorente, an enlisted serviceman who was issued a US citizenship in

1943, was married to petitioner Paula Llorente in 1937. However, upon his
return to the Philippines, he found out that she was pregnant with his
brother’s son.

This prompted Lorenzo Llorente to execute and notarize a written agreement

together with the petitioner that he would not prosecute the latter for her
adulterous affairs provided she agrees to peacefully separate from him and
dissolve their marital union according to judicial proceedings. all family
allowance from the US Navy and all other obligations for Paula’s maintenance
would also be suspended and that they would have a separate agreement
regarding their conjugal properties.

Lorenzo filed for divorce before the Superior Court of the State of California
which issued an interlocutory judgment of divorce which became final in
1952. Lorenzo Llorente thereafter married Alicia Fortuno in 1958 to whom he
had three children.

In 1981, Lorenzo executed a last will and testament to which he bequeathed

his properties to Alicia Fortuno and their three children. The same was
admitted for probate by the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur in 1984.
Before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died in June 1985.

The petitioner then filed with the same court for letters administration of
Lorenzo’s estate in her favor contending that she was the surviving spouse
and the disposition in favor of Alicia and her children encroached on her
legitime and ½ share in the conjugal properties.

The trial court granted Paula’s petition and subsequently ruled that the
divorce decree granted to Lorenzo is void and inapplicable in the Philippines
incidentally making his marriage to Alicia void.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court with
modifications declaring Alicia co-owner of properties acquired during her
cohabitation with Lorenzo.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the divorce was valid

2. Whether the will was valid
HELD:

1. The Court held that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo Llorente was valid
and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. As it has been
held in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. that by virtue of the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are
covered by the policy against absolute divorces. The court likewise
decided that aliens may acquire divorces abroad provided that the same is
valid according to their national law.

As cited in Quita v. Court of Appeals, the rule in the Van Dorn case would
be applicable once proven that the respondent was no longer a Filipino
citizen when he obtained the decree of divorce. This will also subsequently
result in the lost of right to inherit.

Likewise, in Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera, the Court has recognized the legal

effects of a divorce obtained by the petitioner in his country in view of the
nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons.

2. As provided under Article 17 of the Civil Code, forms and solemnities of

contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the
laws of the country in which they are executed. The will is valid as it has
been admitted for probate as it was found to be duly executed in
accordance to Philippine laws.

Lorenzo clearly intended to bequeath all his properties to Alicia and their
children as shown in his will and the court do not intend to frustrate the
wishes of the testator since he is a foreigner not covered by our laws on
family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity.

It must be noted that whatever public policy or good customs govern our
system of legitimes, the Congress did not intend to extend the same to
the succession of foreign nationals.