Digested Quita Vs Ca 2j6g6p

QUITA V. COURT OF APPEALS Short summary: A Filipina wife divorced her Filipino husband then remarried twice. When her former husband (who also remarried and had kids) died, she now claims a share from his estate, claiming that the divorce decree she obtained is not valid as she is a Filipino national. Court held that the 2nd wife of the decedent was not the surviving spouse because they were married even before the divorce decree was obtained by the 1st wife. The court remanded the case just to determine WON the 1st wife was already an US citizen when divorce decree granted. Facts: -Fe Quita married Arturo Padlan (both Filipinos) were married May 1941. -Arturo Padlan married Blandina Dandad April 1947. -Fe Quita obtained a divorce decree in California in July 1954. She remarried 2x -1972: Arturo died intestate, leaving his 2nd family and Fe WHO WAS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE? FE OR BLANDINA? Secret! -Blandina's side implied that Fe was no longer a Filipino citizen when she acquired a divorce decree. However, not threshed out during the trial so remand the case (the TC merely said that since divorce is not valid in RP, divorce decree was also not valid) -However, as the marriage between Blandina and Arturo was contracted when the 1st marriage between Arturo and Fe was still subsisting, it is considered bigamous and thus void. Blandina is clearly not the surviving spouse. -but as the children of Blandina were all recognized by Arturo as his children, these children are assured of shares in the intestate estate