Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
MEROPE ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE
CATALAN,
Petitioner,

- versus -

G. R. No. 183622
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:

LOUELLA A. CATALAN-LEE,
Respondent.
February 8, 2012
x--------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
SERENO, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review assailing the Court of Appeals (CA)
Decision[1] and Resolution[2] regarding the issuance of letters of administration of
the intestate estate of Orlando B. Catalan.
The facts are as follows:
Orlando B. Catalan was a naturalized American citizen. After allegedly
obtaining a divorce in the United States from his first wife, Felicitas Amor, he
contracted a second marriage with petitioner herein.
On 18 November 2004, Orlando died intestate in the Philippines.

Thereafter, on 28 February 2005, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial

Court (RTC) of Dagupan City a Petition for the issuance of letters of
administration for her appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of
Orlando. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings (Spec. Proc.) No. 228.
On 3 March 2005, while Spec. Proc. No. 228 was pending, respondent
Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one of the children of Orlando from his first marriage,
filed a similar petition with the RTC docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 232.
The two cases were subsequently consolidated.
Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of Spec. Proc. No. 232 on the ground
of litis pendentia, considering that Spec. Proc. No. 228 covering the same estate
was already pending.
On the other hand, respondent alleged that petitioner was not considered an
interested person qualified to file a petition for the issuance of letters of
administration of the estate of Orlando. In support of her contention, respondent
alleged that a criminal case for bigamy was filed against petitioner before Branch
54 of the RTC of Alaminos, Pangasinan, and docketed as Crim. Case No. 2699-A.
Apparently, Felicitas Amor filed a Complaint for bigamy, alleging that
petitioner contracted a second marriage to Orlando despite having been married to
one Eusebio Bristol on 12 December 1959.
On 6 August 1998, the RTC had acquitted petitioner of bigamy.[3] The trial
court ruled that since the deceased was a divorced American citizen, and since that
divorce was not recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, the marriage between
him and petitioner was not valid.
Furthermore, it took note of the action for declaration of nullity then pending
action with the trial court in Dagupan City filed by Felicitas Amor against the
deceased and petitioner. It considered the pending action to be a prejudicial
question in determining the guilt of petitioner for the crime of bigamy.
Finally, the trial court found that, in the first place, petitioner had never been
married to Eusebio Bristol.
On 26 June 2006, Branch 70 of the RTC of Burgos, Pangasinan dismissed
the Petition for the issuance of letters of administration filed by petitioner and
granted that of private respondent. Contrary to its findings in Crim. Case No. 2699A, the RTC held that the marriage between petitioner and Eusebio Bristol was

valid and subsisting when she married Orlando. Without expounding, it reasoned
further that her acquittal in the previous bigamy case was fatal to her cause. Thus,
the trial court held that petitioner was not an interested party who may file a
petition for the issuance of letters of administration.[4]
After the subsequent denial of her Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner
elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via her Petition for Certiorari,
alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing her Petition
for the issuance of letters of administration.
Petitioner reiterated before the CA that the Petition filed by respondent
should have been dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia. She also insisted that,
while a petition for letters of administration may have been filed by an uninterested
person, the defect was cured by the appearance of a real party-in-interest. Thus, she
insisted that, to determine who has a better right to administer the decedents
properties, the RTC should have first required the parties to present their evidence
before it ruled on the matter.
On 18 October 2007, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision. First, it
held that petitioner undertook the wrong remedy. She should have instead filed a
petition for review rather than a petition for certiorari. Nevertheless, since the
Petition for Certiorari was filed within the fifteen-day reglementary period for
filing a petition for review under Sec. 4 of Rule 43, the CA allowed the Petition
and continued to decide on the merits of the case. Thus, it ruled in this wise:
As to the issue of litis pendentia, we find it not applicable in the case.
For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, there must be: (a)
identity of the parties or at least such as to represent the same interest in both
actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same acts, and (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that
the judgment which may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the other. A petition for letters of
administration is a special proceeding. A special proceeding is an application or
proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. And, in
contrast to an ordinary civil action, a special proceeding involves no defendant or
respondent. The only party in this kind of proceeding is the petitioner of the
applicant. Considering its nature, a subsequent petition for letters of
administration can hardly be barred by a similar pending petition involving the
estate of the same decedent unless both petitions are filed by the same person. In
the case at bar, the petitioner was not a party to the petition filed by the private
respondent, in the same manner that the latter was not made a party to the petition
filed by the former. The first element of litis pendentia is wanting. The contention
of the petitioner must perforce fail.

Moreover, to yield to the contention of the petitioner would render

nugatory the provision of the Rules requiring a petitioner for letters of
administration to be an interested party, inasmuch as any person, for that matter,
regardless of whether he has valid interest in the estate sought to be administered,
could be appointed as administrator for as long as he files his petition ahead of
any other person, in derogation of the rights of those specifically mentioned in the
order of preference in the appointment of administrator under Rule 78, Section 6
of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides:
xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner, armed with a marriage certificate, filed her petition for
letters of administration. As a spouse, the petitioner would have been preferred to
administer the estate of Orlando B. Catalan. However, a marriage certificate, like
any other public document, is only prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein. The fact that the petitioner had been charged with bigamy and was
acquitted has not been disputed by the petitioner. Bigamy is an illegal
marriage committed by contracting a second or subsequent marriage before the
first marriage has been dissolved or before the absent spouse has been declared
presumptively dead by a judgment rendered in a proper proceedings. The
deduction of the trial court that the acquittal of the petitioner in the said case
negates the validity of her subsequent marriage with Orlando B. Catalan has
not been disproved by her. There was not even an attempt from the petitioner
to deny the findings of the trial court. There is therefore no basis for us to make
a contrary finding. Thus, not being an interested party and a stranger to the estate
of Orlando B. Catalan, the dismissal of her petition for letters of administration by
the trial court is in place.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED for
lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[5] (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of this Decision. [6] She alleged that the
reasoning of the CA was illogical in stating, on the one hand, that she was
acquitted of bigamy, while, on the other hand, still holding that her marriage with
Orlando was invalid. She insists that with her acquittal of the crime of bigamy, the
marriage enjoys the presumption of validity.
On 20 June 2008, the CA denied her motion.
Hence, this Petition.

At the outset, it seems that the RTC in the special proceedings failed to
appreciate the finding of the RTC in Crim. Case No. 2699-A that petitioner was
never married to Eusebio Bristol. Thus, the trial court concluded that, because
petitioner was acquitted of bigamy, it follows that the first marriage with Bristol
still existed and was valid. By failing to take note of the findings of fact on the
nonexistence of the marriage between petitioner and Bristol, both the RTC and CA
held that petitioner was not an interested party in the estate of Orlando.
Second, it is imperative to note that at the time the bigamy case in Crim.
Case No. 2699-A was dismissed, we had already ruled that under the principles of
comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign
nationality. This doctrine was established as early as 1985 in Van Dorn v. Romillo,
Jr.[7] wherein we said:
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of
the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorces[,] the same being considered contrary to our concept of public
policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may
be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their
national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent
from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce
dissolves the marriage. xxx

We reiterated this principle in Llorente v. Court of Appeals,[8] to wit:

In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. we held that owing to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by
the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our
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.
Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals,
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.
In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, we recognized the divorce obtained by the
respondent in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. There, we stated
that divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar
as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law
on the status of persons.
For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals
must be reversed. We hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente

from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a
matter of comity. xxx

Nonetheless, the fact of divorce must still first be proven as we have

enunciated in Garcia v. Recio,[9] to wit:
Respondent is getting ahead of himself. Before a foreign judgment is
given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and
admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree
itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The
decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official body or
tribunal of a foreign country.
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or
document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by
either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer
having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines,
such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his
office.
The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be
an authentic one issued by an Australian family court. However, appearance is not
sufficient; compliance with the aforementioned rules on evidence must be
demonstrated.
Fortunately for respondent's cause, when the divorce decree of May 18,
1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its
admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil
Registry of Cabanatuan City. The trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject
to petitioner's qualification. Hence, it was admitted in evidence and accorded
weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioner's failure to object properly rendered the
divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney,
Australia.
Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family Code is
not necessary; respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after
he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. Naturalization is the legal act of
adopting an alien and clothing him with the political and civil rights belonging to
a citizen. Naturalized citizens, freed from the protective cloak of their former
states, don the attires of their adoptive countries. By becoming an Australian,
respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that
had tied him to Philippine personal laws.
Burden of Proving Australian Law
Respondent contends that the burden to prove Australian divorce law falls
upon petitioner, because she is the party challenging the validity of a foreign

judgment. He contends that petitioner was satisfied with the original of the
divorce decree and was cognizant of the marital laws of Australia, because she
had lived and worked in that country for quite a long time. Besides, the Australian
divorce law is allegedly known by Philippine courts; thus, judges may take
judicial notice of foreign laws in the exercise of sound discretion.
We are not persuaded. The burden of proof lies with the party who
alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense
of an action. In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the material
allegations of the complaint when those are denied by the answer; and
defendants have the burden of proving the material allegations in their
answer when they introduce new matters. Since the divorce was a defense
raised by respondent, the burden of proving the pertinent Australian law
validating it falls squarely upon him.
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take
judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and
proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters that judges are
supposed to know by reason of their judicial function. The power of judicial
notice must be exercised with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the
subject should be resolved in the negative. (Emphasis supplied)

It appears that the trial court no longer required petitioner to prove the
validity of Orlandos divorce under the laws of the United States and the marriage
between petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to remand the
proceedings to the trial court for further reception of evidence to establish the fact
of divorce.
Should petitioner prove the validity of the divorce and the subsequent
marriage, she has the preferential right to be issued the letters of administration
over the estate. Otherwise, letters of administration may be issued to respondent,
who is undisputedly the daughter or next of kin of the deceased, in accordance with
Sec. 6 of Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court.
This is consistent with our ruling in San Luis v. San Luis,[10] in which we
said:
Applying the above doctrine in the instant case, the divorce decree
allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry,
would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present petition
as Felicisimo's surviving spouse. However, the records show that there is
insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the divorce obtained by Merry
Lee as well as the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo under the laws of
the U.S.A. In Garcia v. Recio, the Court laid down the specific guidelines for
pleading and proving foreign law and divorce judgments. It held that presentation

solely of the divorce decree is insufficient and that proof of its authenticity and
due execution must be presented. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing
or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by
either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer
having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines,
such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his
office.
With regard to respondent's marriage to Felicisimo allegedly solemnized
in California, U.S.A., she submitted photocopies of the Marriage Certificate and
the annotated text of the Family Law Act of California which purportedly show
that their marriage was done in accordance with the said law. As stated in Garcia,
however, the Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be
alleged and proved.
Therefore, this case should be remanded to the trial court for further
reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the
marriage of respondent and Felicisimo. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, it is imperative for the trial court to first determine the validity of the
divorce to ascertain the rightful party to be issued the letters of administration over
the estate of Orlando B. Catalan.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The Decision dated 18 October 2007 and the Resolution dated 20
June 2008 of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let
this case be REMANDED to Branch 70 of the Regional Trial Court of Burgos,
Pangasinan for further proceedings in accordance with this Decision.
SO ORDERED.