LLORENTE vs.

CA

FACTS: Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente were married in Camarines Sur. Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo left for the US Navy while Paula stayed in their conjugal home in Camarines Sur. Lorenzo was admitted to US citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization was issued in his favor. When Lorenzo was allowed to visit his wife in the Philippines, he discovered his wife was pregnant and was living in and having an adulterous relationship with his brother, Ceferino L lorente. Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and the two drew a written agreement which essentially shows that Paula admitted her adulterous acts and that the couple agreed to separate. Lorenzo returned to the US and filed for divorce which was granted. Lorenzo returned to the Philippines and married Alicia Llorente. Alicia had no knowledge of the first marriage even if they resided in the same town as Paula, who did not oppose the marriage or cohabitation. Lorenzo and Alicia lived together for 25 years and produced 3 children. Before Lorenzo died, he executed a will, which was pending before the probate court, bequeathing all his property to Alicia and their 3 children. After Lorenzo died, Paula filed with the same court a petition for letters of administration over his estate in his favor. Alicia filed as well. RTC found that the divorce decree granted to Lorenzo is void and inapplicable in the Philippines therefore the marriage he contracted with Alicia is void. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce is valid?

HELD: YES. The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen long before and at the time of: (1) his divorce from Paula; (2) marriage to Alicia; (3) execution of his will; and (4) death, is duly established, admitted and undisputed. Thus, as a rule, issues arising from there incidents are necessarily governed by foreign law. Inasmuch as it was duly established that Lorenzo was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce, the same is valid and recognized in our jurisdiction so long as it was valid pursuant to his national law. In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., the court held that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the CC, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to the 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. Furthermore, in the case of Quita v. CA, that once proven that respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from him. For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the CA must be reversed. The divorce obtained by Lorenzo from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. (The SC remand the case to the TC for ruling on the intrinsic validity of the will is left to the TC.)