#void ab initio

Article 26 of the Family Code provides that,

“All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”

Fe D. Quita vs. Court of Appeals and Blandina Dandan

Facts:

>> The wife Fe D. Quita and her husband Arturo  T.  Padlan,  both  Filipinos,  were  married in the Philippines year 1941. However,  they  got  divorce  in  San  Francisco  on  July  23,1954. Both of  them  remarried, wherein, Blandina became the second wife of Arturo, the respondent in this case. They were blessed with six (6) children.

>> Arturo  died in 1972,  the  trial  court  was  set  to  find out  as  to who will be the intestate heirs. The trial court in Tenchavez vs Escano case held that the  divorce  acquired  by  the  petitioner  is  not  recognized  in  our  country. 

>> On the other hand, the respondent pointed out  that  the  citizenship  of  petitioner  was  relevant  in  the  light of  the ruling in Van  Dorn v. Romill, Jr. that foreign spouses who obtain divorce abroad are recognized in the Philippines  provided  they  are  valid  according  to  their  national  law and it is tried and proven in the Philippines. 

>> The  Trial  court  disregarded  the  respondent’s  statement.  The net  hereditary estate  was ordered in favor the petitioner and the brother of Arturo, Ruperto. Thus, promting Blandina and  the Padlan  children  to move  for  reconsideration. 

>> Blandina and her children appeal to the Court of Appeals that the case was decided without a hearing in violation of the Rules of Court, and disfavor them.

Issue:

>> Whether or not Blandina’s marriage to Arturo void ab initio.

Ruling: