Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAULA T. LLORENTE v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 155635 2008-11-07	MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Three legal premises need to be underscored at the outset. First, a divorce obtained abroad by an alien married to a Philippine national may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the decree of divorce is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.[31] Second, the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the divorcing parties at birth or at the time of marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad. And third, an absolute divorce secured by a Filipino married to another Filipino is contrary to our concept of public policy and morality and shall not be recognized in this jurisdiction.[32]
	GR No. 164790 2008-08-29	SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. GLORIA DE LOS SANTOS REYES, R.T., J.
As found by both the SSC and the CA, the divorce obtained by respondent against the deceased Antonio was not binding in this jurisdiction. Under Philippine law, only aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.[15] The divorce was obtained by respondent Gloria while she was still a Filipino citizen and thus covered by the policy against absolute divorces. It did not sever her marriage ties with Antonio.
	GR NO. 139868 2006-06-08	ALONZO Q. ANCHETA v. CANDELARIA GUERSEY-DALAYGON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a corollary rule, Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court on Allowance of Will Proved Outside the Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder, states: SEC. 4. Estate, how administered. - When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country. (Emphasis supplied) While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them;[37] however, petitioner, as ancillary administrator of Audrey's estate, was duty-bound to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland.[38]
	GR No. 142820 2003-06-20	WOLFGANG O. ROEHR v. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ QUISUMBING, J.
In Garcia v. Recio,[19] Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.,[20] and Llorente v. Court of Appeals,[21] we consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. Relevant to the present case is Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,[22] where this Court specifically recognized the validity of a divorce obtained by a German citizen in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. We held in Pilapil that a foreign 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.