Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    Fe D. Quita V CA

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Lopez
    Fe D. Quita filed a petition against the Court of Appeals and Blandina Dandan regarding the estate of her deceased ex-husband Arturo Padlan. The trial court originally ruled in favor of Fe, finding that her divorce from Arturo in 1954 was valid and his subsequent marriage to Blandina was void. Blandina appealed, arguing the case was decided without a hearing. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. On review, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's original ruling, finding that Fe's divorce was valid and Blandina's marriage to Arturo was void, so Fe was the proper heir to Arturo's estate,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fe D. Quita V CA

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Lopez
    139 views2 pages
    Fe D. Quita filed a petition against the Court of Appeals and Blandina Dandan regarding the estate of her deceased ex-husband Arturo Padlan. The trial court originally ruled in favor of Fe, finding that her divorce from Arturo in 1954 was valid and his subsequent marriage to Blandina was void. Blandina appealed, arguing the case was decided without a hearing. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. On review, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's original ruling, finding that Fe's divorce was valid and Blandina's marriage to Arturo was void, so Fe was the proper heir to Arturo's estate,

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Fe D. Quita v CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fe D. Quita filed a petition against the Court of Appeals and Blandina Dandan regarding the estate of her deceased ex-husband Arturo Padlan. The trial court originally ruled in favor of Fe, finding that her divorce from Arturo in 1954 was valid and his subsequent marriage to Blandina was void. Blandina appealed, arguing the case was decided without a hearing. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. On review, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's original ruling, finding that Fe's divorce was valid and Blandina's marriage to Arturo was void, so Fe was the proper heir to Arturo's estate,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    139 views2 pages

    Fe D. Quita V CA

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Lopez
    Fe D. Quita filed a petition against the Court of Appeals and Blandina Dandan regarding the estate of her deceased ex-husband Arturo Padlan. The trial court originally ruled in favor of Fe, finding that her divorce from Arturo in 1954 was valid and his subsequent marriage to Blandina was void. Blandina appealed, arguing the case was decided without a hearing. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. On review, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's original ruling, finding that Fe's divorce was valid and Blandina's marriage to Arturo was void, so Fe was the proper heir to Arturo's estate,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FE D. QUITA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BLANDINA DANDAN,*respondents.

    Facts:

    - Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on May
    18, 1941. No children were born out of their marriage.
    - Their relationship soured and Fe sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California.
    - On July 23, 1954, Fe obtained a final judgment of divorce.
    - 3 weeks after she married Felix Tupaz. Then married a certain Wenimont, still in the USA
    - On April 16, 1972, Arturo died leaving no will.
    - On August 31, 1972, Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the RTC of QC for issuance of
    letters of administration concerning the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust
    Company.
    - Respondent Blandina Dandan, claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Dandan and
    the surviving children, all surnamed Padlan, opposed the petition.
    - The Oppositors (Blandina and Padlan Children) submitted certified photocopies of the July
    1950 divorce final judgement between Fe and Arturo.
    - Fe moved for the immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent and declaration of
    estate.
    - RTC: The marriage between Antonio and Fe subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972,
    that the marriage existed between Blandina and Arturo was clearly void since it was
    celebrated during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner.
    - Blandina appealed to the CA assigned as one of the errors allegedly committed by the trial
    court the circumstance that the case was decided without a hearing, in violation of Sec.
    1, Rule 90, of the Rules of Court, which provides that if there is a controversy before the
    court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares
    to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided
    as in ordinary cases.
    - CA remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Issues:

    1. WON the case be remanded to the lower court? Yes

    2. Who between the petitioner and private respondent is the proper heir of the decedent?
    Petitioner Fe

    Held:

    1. Yes. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased
    person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the
    controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
    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.

    2. Private respondent'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.

    You might also like