Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Quita Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jessie Albert Catapang
    1) Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan were married in the Philippines in 1941. Fe later divorced Arturo in California in 1954. 2) Arturo then married Blandina Dandan in 1947 while still married to Fe. 3) When Arturo died in 1972, Blandina claimed the estate as the surviving spouse. However, the court ruled that Arturo's marriage to Blandina was bigamous and void since he was still married to Fe at the time. Therefore, Blandina was not the legitimate surviving spouse entitled to inherit from Arturo's estate.

    Copyright:

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

    Quita Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jessie Albert Catapang
    29 views1 page
    1) Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan were married in the Philippines in 1941. Fe later divorced Arturo in California in 1954. 2) Arturo then married Blandina Dandan in 1947 while still married to Fe. 3) When Arturo died in 1972, Blandina claimed the estate as the surviving spouse. However, the court ruled that Arturo's marriage to Blandina was bigamous and void since he was still married to Fe at the time. Therefore, Blandina was not the legitimate surviving spouse entitled to inherit from Arturo's estate.

    Original Description:

    Persons and Family Relations

    Original Title

    Quita vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan were married in the Philippines in 1941. Fe later divorced Arturo in California in 1954. 2) Arturo then married Blandina Dandan in 1947 while still married to Fe. 3) When Arturo died in 1972, Blandina claimed the estate as the surviving spouse. However, the court ruled that Arturo's marriage to Blandina was bigamous and void since he was still married to Fe at the time. Therefore, Blandina was not the legitimate surviving spouse entitled to inherit from Arturo's estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    Quita Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jessie Albert Catapang
    1) Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan were married in the Philippines in 1941. Fe later divorced Arturo in California in 1954. 2) Arturo then married Blandina Dandan in 1947 while still married to Fe. 3) When Arturo died in 1972, Blandina claimed the estate as the surviving spouse. However, the court ruled that Arturo's marriage to Blandina was bigamous and void since he was still married to Fe at the time. Therefore, Blandina was not the legitimate surviving spouse entitled to inherit from Arturo's estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    124862 December 22, 1998

    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 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.

    Arturo died leaving no will. On August 31, 1972, Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the RTC
    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 RTC expressed that the marriage between Antonio and petitioner subsisted
    until the death of Arturo in 1972, that the marriage existed between private respondent
    and Arturo was clearly void since it was celebrated during the existence of his previous
    marriage to petitioner. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further
    proceedings.
    Issue: Whether or not the marriage of Blandina Dandan and Arturo Padlan is valid?
    Decision: No. Blandina 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