A foreign divorce between Filipinos sought and decreed is not entitled to

A foreign divorce between filipinos sought and

This preview shows page 503 - 508 out of 512 pages.

the eyes of Philippine laws, Tenchavez and Escano are still married. A foreigndivorce between Filipinos sought and decreed is not entitled to recognitionneither is the marriage of the divorcee entitled to validity in the Philippines.503
Background image
Thus, the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one spouseentitled the other for damages. 504
Background image
312.VICENTE B. TEOTICO vs. ANA DEL VAL, ETC.13 SCRA 406; March 26, 1965FACTS: Maria Mortera died on July 1955 leaving properties worth P600,000. Sheexecuted a will written in Spanish, affixed her signature and acknowledgedbefore Notary Public by her and the witnesses. Among the legacies made inthe will was the P20,000 for Rene Teotico who was married to the testatrix’sniece, Josefina Mortera. The usufruct of Maria’s interest in the Calvo Buildingwere left to the said spouses and the ownership thereof was left in equalparts to her grandchildren, the legitimate children of said spouses. Josefinawas likewise instituted, as sole and universal heir to all the remainder of herproperties not otherwise disposed by will. Vicente Teotico filed a petition forthe probate of the will but was opposed by Ana del Val Chan, claiming thatshe was an adopted child of Francisca (deceased sister of Maria) and anacknowledged natural child of Jose (deceased brother of Maria), that said willwas not executed as required by law and that Maria as physically andmentally incapable to execute the will at the time of its execution and wasexecuted under duress, threat, or influence of fear.ISSUE:Whether defendant has right to intervene in this proceeding.HELD:It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed tointervene in a probate proceeding is that he must have an interest in theestate, will or in the property to be affected by either as executor or as aclaimant of the estate and be benefited by such as an heir or one who has aclaim against it as creditor. Under the terms of the will, defendant has noright to intervene because she has no such interest in the estate either asheir, executor or administrator because it did not appear therein anyprovision designating her as heir/ legatee in any portion of the estate. Shecould have acquired such right if she was a legal heir of the deceased butshe is not under the CIVIL CODE. Even if her allegations were true, the lawdoes not give her any right to succeed the estate of the deceased sister ofboth Jose and Francisca because being an illegitimate child she is prohibitedby law from succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her natural father andthat relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter andadopted and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents except505
Background image
only as expressly provided by law. As a consequence, she is an heir of theadopter but not of the relatives of the adopter. Hence, defendant has no rightto intervene either as testamentary or as legal heir in the probateproceeding506
Background image
313.TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS vs. EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET.
Background image
Image of page 508

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 512 pages?

  • Summer '14
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture