10.
The court required the submission of the records
FE D. QUITA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and
BLANDINA
DANDAN, * respondents.
G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998
Topic: Lex Loci Celebrationis Recognized Subject to
Exceptions and Recognition of Foreign Divorce.
Law:
1. Article 26 of the Family Code.
2. Article 80
3. Artivle 83
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines,
in accordance with the laws in force in the country where
they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also
be valid in this country, except those prohibited under
Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. (17a)
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Facts:
1. Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan were married in the
Philippines. Both were Filipino.
2. Not blessed with children. Ended up divorced.
3. Fe Quita re married to Felix Tupaz. Also ended in
divorce.
4. Marries for the third time to Wernimont.
5. April 1972, Arturo Padlan died without leaving
any will.
6. Blandina Dandan (Blandina Padlan) claimed to be
the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan and so as
tha Padlan children (Claro, Alexis, Ricardo,
Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda)
7. Ruperto Padlan claims to be the sole surviving
brother of the deceased Arturo intervened.
8. Petitioners moved for the immediate declaration
of heirs of the decedent and the distribution of
his estate.
9. Private respondent and the six Padlan children
and Ruperto failed to appear at the scheduled
hearing.
of birth of the Padlan children within ten days
from receipt that would be considered submitted
for resolution yet the required documents was
not submitted within the prescribed period.
ISSUE(s):
1. W/N 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. YES
2. W/N bigamous marriage can consider the
surviving spouse as legal spouse. NO
HELD:
1. Both petitioner and Arturo were "Filipino
citizens and were married in the
Philippines." 16 It maintained that their divorce
obtained in 1954 in San Francisco, California,
U.S.A., was not valid in Philippine jurisdiction. 
2. The Private Respondent 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 inherit from him as this status presupposes
a legitimate relationship.
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 he 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.
ESSENCE:
1. Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the
Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force
in the country where they were solemnized, and
 valid there as such, shall also be valid in this
country, except those prohibited under Articles
35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. (17a)
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and
a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry
under Philippine law.
2. A foreign divorce between Filipino citizens
sought and decreed after the effectivity of the
present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386) was not
entitled to recognition as valid in this
jurisdiction.