B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED G.R.No.

124371
Llorente vs CA Llorente vs CA

I. Recit-ready summary whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country
In 1927, Lorenzo Llorente, then a Filipino, was enlisted in the U.S. Navy. wherein said property may be found.”
In 1937, he and Paula Llorente got married in Camarines Sur. In 1943,
Lorenzo became an American citizen. For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals
must be reversed.[43] We hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H.
In 1945, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines for a vacation. He discovered Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this
that Paula was already living illicitly with Ceferino Llorente, a brother of jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to
Lorenzo and the two even have a son. the succession to the estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the
determination of the trial court. “Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of
Lorenzo then refused to live with Paula. He also refused to give her contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the
monetary support. Eventually, Lorenzo and Paula agreed in writing that laws of the country in which they are executed. Will is valid. SC reversed
Lorenzo shall not criminally charge Paula if the she will agree to waive all the decision.
monetary support from Lorenzo. Later, Lorenzo returned to the US. Facts of the case

In 1951, Lorenzo filed a divorce proceeding against Paula in California. - Lorenzo Llorente is a serviceman in the US ARMY from 1927-
Paula was represented by an American counsel. The divorce was granted 1957
and in 1952, the divorce became final.
- On feb 22 1937 Lorenzo and Paula were married in Camarines sur,
Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. In 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia during this period Lorenzo had to leave b/c of the pacific war,
Fortuno. They had three children. while Paula remained in their conjugal home

In 1981, Lorenzo executed his last will and testament where he left all his - On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States
estate to Alicia and their children and left nothing for Paula. In 1983, citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization No. 5579816 was
Lorenzo went to the court for the will’s probate and to have Alicia as the issued in his favor by the United States District Court, Southern
administratrix of his property. In 1985, before the probate proceeding can District of New York.
be terminated, Lorenzo died. Later, Paula filed a petition for letters of
administration over Lorenzo’s estate. - He then returned and noticed that his wife was pregnant and was
living in with his brother Ceferino
RTC ruled that Lorenzo’s marriage with Alicia is void because the
divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void and - The boy was named Crisologo Llorante with the certificate stating
inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage he contracted with that the child was not legitimate and the line for the father’s name
Alicia Fortunato on January 16, 1958 at Manila is likewise void. was left blank

The CA affirmed the trial court decision.. -  February 2, 1946, the couple drew a written agreement to the
Issue: Who is entitled to Inherit? effect that
However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the
order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the (1) all the family allowances allotted by the United States Navy as part of
intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the Lorenzo’s salary and all other obligations for Paula’s daily maintenance and
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, support would be suspended;

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Sandoval Guttierez, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Art 838 DIGEST MAKER: Romeo Luis R. Villonco
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED G.R.No. 124371
Llorente vs CA Llorente vs CA

(2) they would dissolve their marital union in accordance with judicial Who are entitled to inherit from the late Lorenzo N. Llorente?
proceedings;
3) they would make a separate agreement regarding their conjugal property Ratio/Legal Basis
acquired during their marital life; and
(4) Lorenzo would not prosecute Paula for her adulterous act since she
voluntarily admitted her fault and agreed to separate from Lorenzo The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen
peacefully. The agreement was signed by both Lorenzo and Paula and was long before and at the time of: (1) his divorce from Paula; (2) marriage to
witnessed by Paula’s father and stepmother. The agreement was notarized Alicia; (3) execution of his will; and (4) death, is duly established, admitted
by Notary Public Pedro Osabe and undisputed.

- Lorenzo went back to the PH and married Alicia (he got a divorce Thus, as a rule, issues arising from these incidents are necessarily
from paula in California) governed by foreign law.

- BUT Alicia had no knowledge of the marriage w/ Paula and even However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to
lived in the same town they had 3 kids, Raul, Luz and Beverly the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the
intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
- In 1981 he made a will which was duly witnessed and and was national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
notarized whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country
wherein said property may be found
- Lorenzo bequeathed all his property to Alicia and her Children, he
filed for his will to be admitted into probate which the RTC denied While the substance of the foreign law was pleaded, the Court of
b/c the testator was still alive but then admitted it on another day Appeals did not admit the foreign law. The Court of Appeals and the trial
since it was duly executed. LORENZO DIED court called to the fore the renvoi doctrine, where the case was "referred
back" to the law of the decedent’s domicile, in this case, Philippine law.
- Paula filed with the same court a petition 22 for letters of
administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor. Paula contended
(1) that she was Lorenzo’s surviving spouse, (2) that the various We note that while the trial court stated that the law of New York was
property were acquired during their marriage, (3) that Lorenzo’s not sufficiently proven, in the same breath it made the categorical, albeit
will disposed of all his property in favor of Alicia and her children, equally unproven statement that "American law follows the ‘domiciliary
encroaching on her legitime and 1/2 share in the conjugal property. theory’ hence, Philippine law applies when determining the validity of
Lorenzo’s will. 
- On December 13, 1985, Alicia filed in the testate proceeding (Sp.
Proc. No. IR-755), a petition for the issuance of letters there is no such law governing the validity of testamentary provisions
testamentary. 24 in the United States. Each State of the union has its own law applicable to
its citizens and in force only within the State. It can therefore refer to no
- On October 14, 1985, without terminating the testate proceedings, other than the law of the State of which the decedent was a resident. 39
the trial court gave due course to Paula’s petition in Sp. Proc. No. Second, there is no showing that the application of the renvoi doctrine is
IR-888.25 called for or required by New York State law

Issue/s

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Sandoval Guttierez, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Art 838 DIGEST MAKER: Romeo Luis R. Villonco
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED G.R.No. 124371
Llorente vs CA Llorente vs CA

The trial court held that the will was intrinsically invalid since it
contained dispositions in favor of Alice, who in the trial court’s opinion was Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals,
a mere paramour. The trial court threw the will out, leaving Alice, and her 41 that once proven that respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when
two children, Raul and Luz, with nothing. he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in Van Dorn would
become applicable and petitioner could "very well lose her right to inherit"
The Court of Appeals also disregarded the will. It declared Alice from him.
entitled to one half (1/2) of whatever property she and Lorenzo acquired
during their cohabitation, applying Article 144 of the Civil Code of the For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of
Philippines. Appeals must be reversed. 43 We hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo
H. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this
The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the
the will, already probated as duly executed in accordance with the succession to the estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the
formalities of Philippine law, is fatal, especially in light of the factual and determination of the trial court.
legal circumstances here obtaining.

The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife
and children by her is glaringly shown in the will he executed. We do not
wish to frustrate his wishes, since he was a foreigner, not covered by our
laws on "family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity.

Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from
Lorenzo are issues best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and
proved. Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities
required is answered by referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was
duly probated

As a guide however, the trial court should note that whatever public
policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes,
Congress did not intend to extend the same to the succession of foreign
nationals. Congress specifically left the amount of successional rights to the
decedent’s national law.

ISSUE ON DIVORCE

In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. 40 we held that owing to the nationality

principle embodied in Article 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. In
the same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
provided they are valid according to their national law.

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Sandoval Guttierez, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Art 838 DIGEST MAKER: Romeo Luis R. Villonco