Paula Llorente vs Court of Appeals

Succession Last Will and Testament of an Alien

In 1927, Lorenzo Llorente, then a Filipino, was
enlisted in the U.S. Navy. In 1937, he and Paula
Llorente got married in Camarines Sur. In 1943,
Lorenzo became an American citizen.
In 1945, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines for a
vacation. He discovered that Paula was already
living illicitly with Ceferino Llorente (brother of
Lorenzo). Ceferino and Paula even had a son.
Lorenzo then refused to live with Paula. He also
refused to give her monetary support. Eventually,
Lorenzo and Paula agreed in writing Lorenzo shall
not criminally charge Paula if the latter agrees to
waive all monetary support from Lorenzo. Later,
Lorenzo returned to the United States.
In 1951, Lorenzo filed a divorce proceeding
against Paula in California. Paula was represented
by an American counsel. The divorce was granted
and in 1952, the divorce became final.
Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. In 1958,
Lorenzo married Alicia Fortuno. They had three
children.
In 1981, Lorenzo executed his last will and
testament where he left all his estate to Alicia
and their children (nothing for Paula). In 1983, he
went to court for the wills probate and to have
Alicia as the administratrix of his property. In
1985, before the probate proceeding can be
terminated, Lorenzo died. Later, Paula filed a
petition for letters of administration over
Lorenzos estate.
The trial court ruled that Lorenzos marriage with
Alicia is void because the divorce he obtained
abroad is void. The trial court ratiocinated that
Lorenzo is a Filipino hence divorce is not
applicable to him. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court.
ISSUES: Whether or not Lorenzos divorce abroad
should be recognized.
HELD: Yes. It is undisputed by Paula Llorente that
Lorenzo became an American citizen in 1943.
Hence, when he obtained the divorce decree in
1952, he is already an American citizen. Article
15 of the Civil Code provides:
Laws relating to family rights and duties, or
to the status, condition and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.
Since Lorenzo was no longer a Filipino, Philipine
laws relating to family rights, duties, or status are
no longer applicable to him. Therefore, the
divorce decree he obtained abroad must be
respected. The rule is: aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, provided they are valid according to their
national law.
However, this case was still remanded to the
lower court so as for the latter to determine the

effects of the divorce as to the successional rights

of Lorenzo and his heirs.
Anent the issue on Lorenzos last will and
testament, it must be respected. He is an alien
and is not covered by our laws on succession.
However, since the will was submitted to our
courts for probate, then the case was remanded
to the lower court where the foreign law must be
alleged in order to prove the validity of the will.

SI v Court of Appeals
FACTS:
Spouses Armada transferred their property to the
names of their three sons namely, Crisotomo,
Jose and Severo. Crisostomo through Cresencia
(atty-in-fact) executed a deed of sale in favor
Anita Si.
Spouses Jose Armada (other brother) filed a
complaint to annul the sale on the ground that
there was no written notice of such sale whereas
the deed stated that the co-owners are not
interested in buying the land. Further, there was
misrepresentation on the citizenship of Cresencia
is a Filipino citizen.
Petitioners claimed that there was really no coownership since the parents executed three
deeds of sale assigning specific properties to the
brothers. Since there is no-ownership it follows
that there is no right to redemption. Petitioners
pointed out that it was only because the brothers
failed to submit a subdivision plan which is the
reason why there is only one certificate of title.
Lower court dismissed the petition. CA reversed
and said that co-ownership still exists and that
the land was undivided. Petitioners filed a motion
for new trial on the basis that there was
annotation at the back of the original TCT due to
the sale in favor of the brothers. CA denied
because the reglementary period had lapsed and
the decision has become final and executory.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are coowners and that they are entitled to right of
redemption based on Art 1623 of NCC.

RULING:
1. Trial court was correct in finding that the
parents already partitioned the property which
was registered with the RD. Every portion
conveyed and transferred was definitely
described and segregated with corresponding
technical description. After this division coownership already ceased. Hence, there is no
right to redemption available to the respondents.

2. There was an actual notice of the impending

sale and Jode even acknowledged such when he

told his brother Crisostomo in a letter Well you

are the king of yourselves, and you can sell your
share of Leveriza. Written notice is no longer
necessary when there is actual notice.

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to

his compulsory heirs upon his death. It is clear
therefore, that Johnny should have continued
complying with the terms of the Will. His failure to
do so shall give rise to an obligation for him to
reconvey the property to the estate of Aleja.

Johnny Rabadilla vs Court of Appeals

A certain Aleja Belleza died but he instituted in
his will Dr. Jorge Rabadilla as a devisee to a 511,
855 hectare land. A condition was however
imposed to the effect that:
1. the naked ownership shall transfer to Dr.
Rabadilla;
2. he shall deliver the fruits of said land to Maria
Belleza, sister of Aleja, during the lifetime of said
Maria Belleza;
3. that in case Dr. Rabadilla shall die before Maria
Belleza, the near descendants, shall continue
delivering the fruits to Maria Belleza;
4. that the said land may only be encumbered,
mortgaged, or sold only to a relative of Belleza.
In 1983, Dr. Rabadilla died. He was survived by
Johnny Rabadilla.
In 1989, Maria Belleza sued Johnny Rabadilla in
order to compel Johnny to reconvey the said land
to the estate of Aleja Belleza because it is alleged
that Johnny failed to comply with the terms of the
will; that since 1985, Johnny failed to deliver the
fruits; and that the the land was mortgaged to
the Philippine National Bank, which is a violation
of the will.
In his defense, Johnny avers that the term near
descendants in the will of Aleja pertains to the
near descendants of Aleja and not to the near
descendants of Dr. Rabadilla, hence, since Aleja
had no near descendants at the time of his death,
no can substitute Dr. Rabadilla on the obligation
to deliver the fruits of the devised land.
ISSUE: Whether or not Johnny Rabadilla is not
obliged to comply with the terms of the Will left
by Aleja Belleza.
HELD: No. The contention of Johnny Rabadilla is
bereft of merit. The near descendants being
referred to in the will are the heirs of Dr.
Rabadilla. Ownership over the devised property
was already transferred to Dr. Rabadilla when
Aleja died. Hence, when Dr. Rabadilla himself
died, ownership over the same property was
transmitted to Johnny Rabadilla by virtue of
succession.
Under Article 776 of the Civil Code, inheritance
includes all the property, rights and obligations of
a person, not extinguished by his death.
Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Rabadilla had
by virtue of the Will were transmitted to his
forced heirs, at the time of his death. And since
obligations not extinguished by death also form
part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the
obligations imposed by the Will on the deceased

Adille vs CA G.R. No. L-44546 January 29,

1988
FACTS:
The property in dispute was originally owned by
Felisa Alzul who got married twice. Her child in
the first marriage was petitioner Rustico Adile and
her children in the second marriage were
respondents Emetria Asejo et al.
During her lifetime, Felisa Alzul sodl the property
in pacto de retro with a three-year repurchase
period.
Felisa died before she could repurchase the
property.
During the redemption period, Rustico Adille
repurchased the property by himself alone at his
own expense, and after that, he executed a deed
of extra-judicial partition representing himself to
be the only heir and child of his mother Felisa.
Consequently, he was able to secure title in his
name alone.
His half-siblings, herein respondents, filed a case
for partition and accounting claiming that Rustico
was only a trustee on an implied trust when he
redeemed the property, and thus, he cannot
claim exclusive ownership of the entire property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a co-owner may acquire exclusive
ownership over the property held in common.
Whether or nor Rustico had constituted himself a
negotiorum gestor
HELD: No. The right to repurchase may be
exercised by a co-owner with respect to his share
alone. Although Rustico Adille redeemed the
property in its entirety, shouldering the expenses
did not make him the owner of all of it.
Yes. The petitioner, in taking over the property,
did so on behalf of his co-heirs, in which event, he
had constituted himself a negotiorum gestor
under Art 2144 of the Civil Code, or for his
exclusive benefit, in which case, he is guilty of
fraud, and must act as trustee, the respondents
being the beneficiaries, pursuant to Art 1456.

DELA MERCED vs. DELA MERCED

February 25, 1999
FACTS:
Evarista M. dela Merced died intestate,
without issue and left (5) parcels of land. At the

time of her death, Evarista was survived by three

No. Article 992 of the NCC is not

sets of heirs.

applicable because involved here is not a

On April 20, 1989, the three sets of heirs

of

the

decedent,

settlement,

executed

adjudicating

the

an

extrajudicial

properties

situation where an illegitimate child would

inherit ab intestato from a legitimate sister

of

of his father, which is prohibited by the

Evarista to them, each set with a share of (1/3)

aforesaid provision of law. Rather, it is a

pro-indiviso. Joselito P. Dela Merced, illegitimate

scenario where an illegitimate child inherits from

son of the late Francisco, filed a "Petition for

his father, the latter's share in or portion of, what

Annulment of the Extrajudicial and prayed that he

the latter already inherited from the deceased

be included to share in the (1/3) pro-indiviso

sister, Evarista. As opined by the Court of

share in the estate of corresponding to the heirs

Appeals, the law in point in the present case is

of Francisco.

Article 777 of the NCC, which provides that the

rights to succession are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent. Since Evarista

ISSUE:
WON Joselito as an illegitimate child is
barred from inheriting from Evaristas estate.

died ahead of her brother Francisco, the latter

inherited a portion of the estate of the former as
one of her heirs. Subsequently, when Francisco
died, his heirs inherited his (Francisco's) share in
the estate of Evarista.

HELD: