NUGUID V.

NUGUID
G.R. NO. L-23445 | JUNE 23, 1966

FACTS:
Rosario Nuguid, a resident of Quezon City, died on December 30, 1962, single, without descendants.
Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, and six (6) brothers and
sisters, namely: Alfredo, Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto, all surnamed Nuguid. Petitioner
Remedios Nuguid (sister) filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed by
Rosario Nuguid about 11 years before her demise.
Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will
annexed be issued to her. Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, concededly the legitimate father and mother of
the deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered their opposition to the probate of her will. Ground therefor, inter alia, is
that by the institution of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as universal heir of the deceased, oppositors — who are
compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending line — were illegally preterited and that in
consequence the institution is void.
CFI, held that "the will in question is a complete nullity and will perforce create intestacy of the estate of
the deceased Rosario Nuguid" and dismissed the petition without costs. Petitioner’s motion to reconsider
thwarted hence this appeal

ISSUE:
Is the will invalid due to preterition?

RULING:
YES ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct
line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the
institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.
Petitioner contends that what we have is a case of disinheritance rather than preterition. This is not
meritorious, as this argument fails to appreciate the distinction between preterition and disinheritance.
Preterition is the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either by not mentioning
them, or although mentioned they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Disinheritance is
a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by
law. The will does not explicitly disinherit the parents. It simply omits their names altogether. Said will rather
than being labeled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in which the forced heir suffers from preterition.

The effects of preterition are totally different from disinheritance. Preterition annuls the institution of
heirs, except devises and legacies insofar as the latter are not in officious. In disinheritance the nullity is limited
to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived. Considering, however
that the will before us solely provides for the institution of the petitioner as universal heir and nothing more, the
result is the same. The entire will is void.
 ENRICO VS. HEIRS

G.R. NO. 173614 | SEPTEMBER 28, 2007

FACTS:

The heirs of Spouses Eulogio and Trinidad Medinaceli filed with the RTC, an action for declaration of
nullity of marriage of Eulogio and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico, alleging that Eulogio and Trinidad were married
in June 1962 and begot seven children, herein respondents. On May 1, 2004, Trinidad died. On August 26,
2004, Eulogio married petitioner before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan without the requisite of a
marriage license. Eulogio passed away six months later. They argued that Article 34 of the Family Code, which
exempts a man and a woman who have been living together for at least five years without any legal impediment
from securing a marriage license, was not applicable to petitioner and Eulogio. Respondents posited that the
marriage of Eulogio to Trinidad was dissolved only upon the latters death, or on 1 May 2004, which was barely
three months from the date of marriage of Eulogio to petitioner. Therefore, petitioner and Eulogio could not
have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. To further their cause, respondents raised the
additional ground of lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogios serious illness which made its performance
impossible.

In the Answer, petitioner maintained that she and Eulogio lived together as husband and wife under one
roof for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they were exempted from the requirement of a marriage license.
She further contended that the marriage ceremony was performed in the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and
solemnized by the Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative defense, she sought the dismissal of the action on the
ground that it is only the contracting parties while living who can file an action for declaration of nullity of
marriage.

ISSUES:

May the heirs validly file the declaration of nullity of marriage between Eulogio and Lolita?

RULING:

No. Administrative Order No. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, effective March 14, 2003, covers marriages
under the Family Code of the Philippines does not allow it. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was
celebrated on August 26, 2004 which falls within the ambit of the order. The order declares that a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. But it does not
mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are already without any recourse under the law. They can still
protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages
and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders, compulsory
or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration
of nullity, but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse
filed in the regular courts.
 CATALAN V. CA
G.R. NO. 167109 | FEBRUARY 6, 2007

FACTS:
Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando on June 4, 1950 in Mabini, Pangasinan.
Thereafter, they migrated to the United States of America and allegedly became naturalized citizens thereof.
After 38 years of marriage, Felicitas and Orlando divorced in April 1988. Two months after the divorce, or on
June 16, 1988, Orlando married respondent Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan. Contending that said marriage was
bigamous since Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol, petitioner filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage with damages in the RTC of Dagupan City against Orlando and Merope.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a
real party-in-interest, but it was denied. Trial on the merits ensued.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Orlando and Felicitas had indeed become naturalized American citizen.
2. Whether or not the had actually been judicially granted a divorce decree
3. Whether or not Felicitas has the personality to file the petition.

RULING:
1. Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner and respondent Orlando were
naturalized American citizens and that they obtained a divorce decree in April 1988. However, after a careful
review of the records, we note that other than the allegations in the complaint and the testimony during the trial,
the records are bereft of competent evidence to prove their naturalization and divorce. It was the Felicitas who
alleged in her complaint that they acquired American citizenship and that Orlando obtained a judicial divorce
decree. It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not
evidence.
2. A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is
valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, before it can be recognized by our courts, the
party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it,
which must be proved considering that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. In this case, no
evidence of divorce decree and the foreign law was presented before the court.
3. Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part of the evidence, we cannot rule on the issue of
whether petitioner has the personality to file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
\
The case was remanded to the trial court for proper disposition.
 QUITA V. CA
G.R. NO. 124862 | DECEMBER 22, 1998

FACTS:
Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan, both Filipinos, were married In 1941 and do not have any children.
Eventually, Fe sued Artuto for divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. in 1954, she obtained a final
judgment of divorce. After her marriage with Padlan, Quita again married twice. In 1972, Arturo died intestate.
Blandina Padlan who claimed to be the surviving spouse of Arturo with their six children prayed for the
appointment of their counsel as administrator.
On the scheduled hearing for the declaration of heirs of decedent and distribution of estate, Blandina and
her 6 children failed to appear. Instead, the trial court required the sibmission of the records of birth of the
Padlan children. Further, the trial court invoked Tenchavez v. Escañowhich held that "a foreign divorce
between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code was not entitled to
recognition as valid in this jurisdiction, thus, disregarding the divorce between Fe and Arturo. Ruperto Padlan,
surviving brother of Arturo, was found to be the only surviving intestate heir of Arturo. Later, Blandina and the
Padlan children presented proofs as legitimate heirs. Thus, the trial court reconsidered its decision and granted
Ruperto with one-half and the Padlan children with the other half. However, Blandina was not declared to be
entitled to the estate as it was found that her marriage with Arturo was celebrated during the existence of
Arturo’s previous marriage making it bigamous, thus void. The CA remanded the case the trial court for further
proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Quita can be declared as an heir as Arturo’s surviving spouse.

RULING:
The right of Quita to inherit Arturo’s estate must still be determined by the trial court. In her motion, she
said that Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained legally married to her in spite of the divorce they obtained.
Reading between the lines, the implication is that petitioner was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her
divorce from Arturo. This should have prompted the trial court to conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship.
The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the truth of the matters in issue with the aid of documentary and
testimonial evidence as well as the arguments of the parties either supporting or opposing the evidence. Instead,
the lower court perfunctorily settled her claim in her favor by merely applying the ruling in Tenchavez v.
Escaño.
On the other hand, Blandina’s claim to heirship was already resolved by the trial court. She 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.
There is no dispute exists either as to the right of the six (6) Padlan children to inherit from the decedent
because there are proofs that they have been duly acknowledged by him and petitioner herself even recognizes
them as heirs of Arturo Padlan; nor as to their respective hereditary shares.