49 Merope Enrique Vs Louella Catalan Lee GR 183622

VDA. DE CATALAN V. CATALAN-LEE 1. No.
The RTC in the special proceedings failed to appreciate the

G. R. No. 183622 finding of the RTC in Crim. Case that petitioner was never married to
February 08, 2012 Eusebio Bristol. It concluded that, because petitioner was acquitted of
bigamy, it follows that the first marriage with Bristol still existed and
DOCTRINE: was valid.
Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which maybe recognized in the 2. Yes. Under the principles of comity, Philippine jurisdiction recognizes
Philippines, provided they are valid ac-cording to their national law. a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of for-eign nationality. Aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines,
FACTS: provided they are valid according to their national law. Nonetheless, the
fact of divorce must still first be proven by the divorce decree itself. The
Orlando B. Catalan, a naturalized American citizen,allegedly obtained a best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. Under Sections 24
divorce in the United States from his first wife, Felicitas Amor. He then and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or
contracted a second marriage with petitioner. 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
When Orlando died intestate in the Philippines, petitioner filed with the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be
RTC a Petition for the issuance of letters of administration for her (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or
appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate. While the case consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign
was pending, respondent Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one of the children of country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of
Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar petition with the RTC. The his office.
two cases were consolidated.
Moreover, the burden of proof lies with the “party who alleges the
Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the petition filed by the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an
respondent on the ground of litis pendentia. Respondent alleged that action.” In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the material
petitioner was not considered an interested person qualified to file the allegations of the complaint when those are denied by the answer; and
petition. Respondent further alleged that a criminal case for bigamy was defendants have the burden of proving the material allegations in their
filed against petitioner by Felicitas Amor contending that petitioner answer when they introduce new matters. It is well-settled in our
contracted a second marriage to Orlando despite having been married jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.
to one Eusebio Bristol. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved.
However, the RTC acquitted petitioner of bigamy and ruled that since It appears that the trial court no longer required petitioner to prove the
the deceased was a divorced American citizen, and that divorce was not validity of Orlando’s divorce under the laws of the United States and the
recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, the marriage between him and marriage between petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to
petitioner was not valid. The RTC took note of the action for declaration remand the proceedings to the trial court for further reception of
of nullity then pending filed by Felicitas Amor against the deceased and evidence to establish the fact of divorce.
petitioner. It considered the pending action to be a prejudicial question
in determining the guilt of petition-er for the crime of bigamy. The RTC
also found that petitioner had never been married to Bristol.
The RTC subsequently 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. 2699-A, the RTC
held that the marriage between petitioner and Eusebio Bristol was valid
and subsisting when she married Orlando. The RTC held that petitioner
was not an interested party who may file said petition. The CA affirmed
the decision of the lower court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the acquittal of petitioner in the crim. case for bigamy

meant that the marriage with Bristol was still valid.
2. Whether the divorce obtained abroad by Orlando may be recognized

under Philippine jurisdiction.
HELD:
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. Petition is partially granted.
Case is remanded to RTC.

49 Merope Enrique Vs Louella Catalan Lee GR 183622

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

49 Merope Enrique Vs Louella Catalan Lee GR 183622

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

49 Merope Enrique Vs Louella Catalan Lee GR 183622

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VDA. DE CATALAN V. CATALAN-LEE 1. No.

The RTC in the special proceedings failed to appreciate the

1. Whether the acquittal of petitioner in the crim. case for bigamy

2. Whether the divorce obtained abroad by Orlando may be recognized

You might also like