Quita Vs CA G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998
Quita Vs CA G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998
Quita Vs CA G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FE D. QUITA and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos,
were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. They
were not however blessed with children. Somewhere
along the way their relationship soured. Eventually Fe
sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California,
U.S.A. She submitted in the divorce proceedings a
private writing dated 19 July 1950 evidencing their
agreement to live separately from each other and a
settlement of their conjugal properties. On 23 July
1954 she obtained a final judgment of divorce. Three
(3) weeks thereafter she married a certain Felix Tupaz
in the same locality but their relationship also ended
in a divorce. Still in the U.S.A., she married for the
third time, to a certain Wernimont.
On 16 April 1972 Arturo died. He left no will. On 31
August 1972 Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for issuance
of letters of administration concerning the estate of
Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Company.
Respondent Blandina Dandan (also referred to
as Blandina Padlan), claiming to be the surviving
spouse of Arturo Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo,
Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, all surnamed
Padlan, named in the children of Arturo Padlan
opposed the petition and prayed for the appointment
instead of Atty. Leonardo Casaba, which was resolved
in favor of the latter. Upon motion of the oppositors
themselves, Atty. Cabasal was later replaced by
Higino Castillon. On 30 April 1973 the oppositors
(Blandina and Padlan children) submitted certified
photocopies of the 19 July 1950 private writing and
the final judgment of divorce between petitioner and
Arturo. Later Ruperto T. Padlan, claiming to be the
sole surviving brother of the deceased Arturo,
intervened.
On 7 October 1987 petitioner moved for the
immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent and
the distribution of his estate. At the scheduled hearing
on 23 October 1987, private respondent as well as
the six (6) Padlan children and Ruperto failed to
appear despite due notice. On the same day, the trial
court required the submission of the records of birth of
the Padlan children within ten (10) days from receipt
CIVIL LAW
decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386) was
not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction," 2 disregarded
CIVIL LAW
CIVIL LAW