RAMIREZ V. GMUR, 42 PHIL 855 (1918) FACTS: Samuel FACTS: Samuel Bischoff Werthmuller, a native of Switzerland, but for many years a resident of Philippines, died testate in Iloilo on June 29, 1913. A few days after his death, the will was offered for probate in CFI Iloilo and was subsequently admitted. 1. His widow, Dona Ana Ramirez, was named executrix. According to the will, the decedent’s estate was bequeathed to his widow, except for a property in Thun, Switzerland, which was devised to the decedent’s brothers and sisters 2. It appears that while the decedent had no children with Ramirez, he ignored possible claims of two sets of children, both to his natural daughter, Leona Castro 3. Based on the baptismal entry in Bacolod, Leona Castro was born on April 11, 1875, her mother mother Felisa Castro and father “unknown.” On the margin of this record, there is additional annotation (escritura or public document) that she was recognized by Samuel Bischoff on June 22, 1877. Bischoff and his family raised Leona and he treated her as his own. 4. Leona married Frederick von Kauffman in 1895 in Hong Kong. From this marriage, 3 children were born: Elena, Federico and Ernesto 5. Subsequently, Leona went with Frederick to Thun, Switzerland, to improve her health and live there for a few years. Later she informed her husband that she wanted a separation. As such, Kauffman went to Paris, France to obtain a divorce from his wife under French laws. A divorce decree was then issued on Jan 5, 1905 in favor of Kauffman against Leona, in default. Though the record shows that Leona was residing in Paris, there is no evidence that she had acquired permanent domicile in that city 6. Leona later cohabited with her physician, Dr. Ernest Emil Mory (in charge of the sanatorium in Switzerland) in London. They later married in London in 1905. It appears that Mory had previously been married to one Helena Wolpman but later divorced. Prior to Mory’s marriage to Leona, they had a daughter Leontina Elizabeth. In 106, they had Carmen Maria and in 1909, Esther. Leona died on Oct 6, 1910 7. Respondent Otto Gmur appeared as guardian of the 3 Mory claimants, while Frederick von Kauffman appeared appeared as the guardian of his 3 children 8. Both sets of children anchor their claim on the contention that Leona was the recognized natural daughter of Samuel Bischoff, as a forced heir, the claimants are entitled to 1/3 interest in Bischoff’s estate 9. On the other hand, Ramirez contended that Leona Castro had never been recognized at all by the decedent during his lifetime 10. On the part of the Mory claimants, they argue that the marriage between Leona and Kauffman was dissolved by the decree of divorce granted by the Paris court in Jan 5, 1905 and that the subsequent marriage between Leona and Mory was in all respects valid and the children legitimate offspring of Leona
11. On the part of the Kauffman claimants, they insisted that the decree of divorce was invalid and they alone are the legitimate offspring of Leona who are entitled to participate in the division of the estate of Bischoff ISSUE: WON Leona is the recognized natural daughter of Samuel Bischoff HELD: Yes. It is proved that prior to her marriage with Kauffman, Leona was in an uninterrupted enjoyment of the de facto status of a natural child and was treated as such by Bischoff and his kindred. The proof of tacit recognition is full and complete. From the memorandum made by Padre Ferrero in the record of birth as well as in his testimony, it appears that Bischoff executed a notarized document recognizing Leona as his daughter. While the note itself was not presented in evidence, it was shown that diligent search was made to discover its whereabouts but without avail. This was sufficient to justify the introduction of secondary evidence concerning its contents; and the testimony of the priest showed that the fact of recognition was therein stated. Furthermore, the memorandum in the baptismal record itself constitutes original and substantive proof of the facts therein. The recognition of Leona as Samuel Bischoff’s daughter occurred prior to the Civil Code and consequently, her rights as derived from the recognition must be determined under the law when it existed. Under the law, recognition could be established by proof of acts on the part of the parent unequivocally recognizing the status of his offspring. In other words, tacit recognition was sufficient. ISSUE: WON Felisa Castro (Leona’s mother) was without legal impediment HELD: Yes. There is no evidence to show that Felisa Castro was either a single woman or widow at the time of Leona’s birth. In the absence of proof to the contrary, however, it must be presumed that she was a single woman or a widow. The contrary presumption would be that Felisa was guilty of adultery cannot be entertained. If such had been the case, the burden of proving it would have been upon the persons impugning the recognition of the child by her father. ISSUE: WON Leona stands to inherit from the estate of Samuel Bischoff HELD: Yes. From the fact that Leona was an acknowledged natural daughter of the decedent, it follows that had she survived him she would have been his forced heir, he having died after the Civil Code took effect; and as such forced heir, she would have been entitled to 1/3 of the inheritance.
ISSUE: WON the Kauffman claimants are entitled to participate in the division of the estate HELD: Yes. Since the Kauffman children were born during the marriage of Leona and Kauffman, it follows that they are entitled to participate in the inheritance which would have devolved upon their mother, if she had survived the testator. ISSUE: WON the divorce decree granted by the Paris court can be recognized in the Philippines HELD: No. The divorce decree in question cannot be recognized as valid in the Philippines. The French tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an action for the dissolution of a marriage contracted in the Philippines by a person domiciled her; such marriage being indissoluble under the laws then prevailing in this country. The evidence shows that both Kauffman and Leona are domiciled in Iloilo, Philippines and that their departure to Switzerland was for medical purpose, and that Kauffman went to Paris in 1904 to obtain a divorce without an intention to establish permanent residence in that city. A court, where neither of the spouses is domiciled, and to which one or both of them may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, has no jurisdiction to determine their matrimonial status; and a divorce granted by such a court is not entitled to recognition elsewhere. ISSUE: WON the Mory claimants are entitled to the estate HELD: No. With regard to the Mory claimants, their rights principally depend upon the effect to be given by this court to divorce degree granted to Kauffman in Paris. If divorce decree is valid, the subsequent marriage of Leona and Mory is also valid. Since the divorce granted by the French court cannot be recognized, it follows that the marriage between Mory and Leona in London could not legalize their relations. The claims of the Mory children to participate in the estate of Bischoff must be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated, and acknowledged natural children. ISSUE: What is the effect of the probate of a will upon the rights of forced heirs who did not appear to contest the probate?
HELD: The rights of the forced heirs to their legitime are not divested by the decree admitting a will to probate — this is regardless of the fact that no provision has been made for them in the will, for the decree of probate is conclusive only with regard to the due execution of the will. Under Sec 753 Code of Civil Procedure, forced heirs cannot be prejudiced by the failure of a testator to provide for them in his will; and regardless of the intention of the testator to leave all his property to his wife, the will is intrinsically invalid insofar as it would operate to cut off their rights. DISPOSITIVE: The order allowing Leontina Mory to participate in the estate of Samuel Bischoff is reversed; and instead the Kauffman children will be admitted to share equally in 1/3 of the estate as provided in the decision of Judge Powell dated Nov 14, 1916. In other respects, the decision of Judge Mariano is affirmed.