Catalan vs. Catalan CASE DIGEST JUDICIAL NOTICE - EVIDENCE G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012

 

Catalan vs. Catalan, G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012

P: Sereno, J.

FACTS: Orlando Catalan was a naturalized American citizen. After allegedly obtaining a divorce in the United States from his first wife, Felicitas Amor, he contracted a second marriage with Merope Catalan. Orlando died intestate in the Philippines. Merope, petitioner, filed with a Petition for the issuance of letters of administration for her appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of Orlando. Louella Catalan-Lee, respondent, one of the children of Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar petition. The two cases were subsequently consolidated. Merope prayed for the dismissal of the second petition considering that the same estate was already pending.

Catalan-Lee alleged that Merope was not considered an interested person qualified to file a petition for the issuance of letters of administration. In support of her contention, Catalan-Lee alleged that a criminal case for bigamy was filed against Merope. Apparently, Felicitas Amor filed a Complaint for bigamy, alleging that Merope contracted a second marriage to Orlando despite having been married to one Eusebio Bristol.

RTC acquitted Merope of bigamy. That since the deceased was a divorced American citizen, and since that divorce was not recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, their marriage was not valid.

Furthermore, it took note of the action for declaration of nullity then pending action with the trial court in Dagupan City filed by Felicitas Amor against the deceased and petitioner. It considered the pending action to be a prejudicial question in determining the guilt of petitioner for the crime of bigamy.

Finally, the trial court found that, in the first place, petitioner had never been married to Eusebio Bristol.

RTC dismissed the Petition for the issuance of letters of administration filed by Merope and granted that of Catalan-Lee. RTC held that the marriage between Merope and Eusebio Bristol was valid and subsisting when she married Orlando. Her acquittal in the previous bigamy case was fatal to her cause. Merope was not an interested party who may file a petition for the issuance of letters of administration. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not courts may take judicial notice of foreign laws

HELD: No. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters that judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function. The power of judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative.

It appears that the RTC no longer required Merope to prove the validity of Orlando’s divorce under the laws of the US and the marriage between Merope and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to remand the proceedings to the RTC for further reception of evidence to establish the fact of divorce.

Should Merope prove the validity of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, she has the preferential right to be issued the letters of administration over the estate. Otherwise, letters of administration may be issued to Catalan-Lee, who is undisputedly the daughter or next of kin of the deceased.