Ramirez v.

Gmur

Doctrine: It is established by the great weight of authority that the court of a country in which
neither of the spouses is domiciled and to which one or both may resort merely for 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. The voluntary appearance of the defendant before
such a tribunal does not invest the court with jurisdiction.

Facts:
Samuel Bischoff Werthmuller, a native of Switzerland but a resident of the
Philippines, died in Iloilo City on Junne 29, 1913, leaving valuable asset which
he disposed by will. His will was offered for probate in the CFI of Iloilo, which
allowed it. Werthmullers widow, Dona Ana M. Ramirez, was named as
executrix. Everything was given to the widow, as the will provided, except for
a piece of real property in the City of Thun, Switzerland, which was devised
to Werthmullers brothers and sisters.
Werthmuller seemed to have ignored in making his will that he had heirs
from his natural daughter, Leona Castro.
Leona Castro was the daughter of Felisa Castro and an unknown father.
There was an annotation on the margin of the original baptismal entry of
Leona Castro that a public document (an escritura) states that she was
recognized by Samuel Bischoff on June 22, 1877. This annotation was
authenticated by the signature of Father Ferrero, whose deposition was taken
in this case. Father Ferrero testified that the word escritura in this entry
means a public document; and he says that such document was exhibited to
him when the marginal note was added to the baptismal record and supplied
the basis of the annotation in the entry.
Samuel Bischoff tacitly recognized Leona Castro as his daughter and treated
her as such. Leona Castro was later married to Frederick von Kauffman, a
British subject, born in HK and lived in Iloilo City. Leona Castro and von
Kauffman had 3 children (Elene, Federico and Ernesto). Leona Castro was
then brought to Thun, Switzerland to recuperate her health. Years later,
Leona Castro informed von Kauffman that she does not want to stay married
with the latter.
Von Kauffman later obtained a divorce decree in Paris, France. It showed that
Leona Castro lived in Paris, though there is no evidence showing that she
acquired permanent domicile in Paris.
The estrangement of von Kauffman and Leona Castro was because Leona Castro was attracted to
Dr. Ernest Emil Mory, the physician in charge of the sanitarium in Switzerland where Leona Castro
was brought. Dr. Mory and Leona Castro was
later married in London, England. It appears that Dr. Mory was already married to a certain
Helena Wolpman, but had divorced her.
Before Dr. Mory and Leona Castro got married, they begot a daughter named Leontina Elizabeth in
nd rd
Thun, Switzerland. A 2 daughter, Carmen Maria, was born in Berne, Switzerland, and a 3
daughter, Esther. On October 6, 1910, Leona Castro died.
Now, the 2 sets of children are claiming from the estate of Samuel Werthmuller. Otto Gmur is the
 guardian of the 3 Mory daughters. Frederick von Kauffman appeared as guardian for his own
children.
Ana Ramirez insists, as against the Mory daughters, that the Leona Castro had never been
recognized by Samuel Werthmuller at all.
As to the Mory daughters, Leontina Elizabeth is considered an illegitimate daughter which was
legitimated by the subsequent marriage of Dr. Mory and Leona Castro. Carmen Maria and Esther
Renate, on the other hand, are to considered legitimate offspring of Leona Castro since the latters
marriage to von Kauffman was already divorced when they were born and Leona was already
married to Dr. Mory.
The von Kauffman children insists that the divorce decree was wholly invalid; that the Mory
daughters are the offspring of an adulterous relationship; and that the von Kauffman daughters alone
should be entitled to participate in the division of the estate.

Issue: Whether or not the Mory daughters and the von Kauffman children are entitled to participate
in the division of the estate of Samuel Bischoff Werthmuller.

Held: The SC held that the von Kauffman children are entitled to participate in the inheritance as
legitimate children of Leona Castro and Frederick von Kauffman. Leona Castros relationship to Samuel
Werthmuller was ruled as follows:

It is satisfactorily shown that Leona Castro was a recognized natural daughter of Samuel Bischoff.
The memorandum made by Father Ferrero as to the recognition of Leona Castro was found
satisfactory, even though the original was not presented after diligent search and secondary
evidence as well as Fr. Ferreros deposition was presented.
It will be observed that the recognition of Leona Castro as the daughter of Samuel Bischoff occurred
prior to the date when the Civil Code was put in force in these Islands; and consequently, her rights
as derived from the recognition must be determined under the law as it then existed, that is, under
Law 11 of Toro, which afterwards became Law 1, title 5, book 10, of the Novisima Recopilacion.
Under that 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, at tacit recognition was
sufficient. Under article 131 of the present Civil Code, the acknowledgment of a natural child must be
made in the record of birth, by will, or in another public instrument. We believe the recognition of
Leona Castro is sufficiently shown whether the case be judged by the one provision or the other.
But it is contended by counsel for Doa Ana Ramirez that only children born of persons free to marry
may possess the status of recognized natural children, and there is no evidence to show that Felisa
Castro was either a single woman or widow at the time of the conception or birth of Leona. In the
absence of proof to the contrary, it must be presumed that she was single or a widow.
From the fact that Leona Castro was an acknowledged natural daughter of her father, 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 one-third of the inheritance.
To determine the rights of the Mory daughters, the SC had to consider the validity of the
divorce decree obtained by von Kauffman in Paris. If the decree is valid, then the marriage of
Mory and Leona Castro is valid and the Mory daughters are entitled to participate in the
division of the estate. Otherwise, the Mory daughters would have no such right.
As to the Mory daughters, the SC held that the divorce decree relied upon cannot be
recognized as valid in the courts of 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 here, such marriage being indissoluble under the laws then prevailing in this
country.
The evidence shows conclusively that Frederick von Kauffman at all times since earliest youth has
 been, and is now, domiciled in the city of Iloilo in the Philippine Islands; that he there married Leona
Castro, who was a citizen of the Philippine Islands, and that Iloilo was their matrimonial domicile;
that his departure from iloilo for the purpose of taking his wife to Switzerland was limited to that
purpose alone, without any intent to establish a domicile elsewhere; and finally that he went to Paris
in 1904, for the sole purpose of getting a divorce, without any intention of establishing a permanent
residence in that city. The evidence shows that the decree was entered against the defendant in
default, for failure to answer, and there is nothing to show that she had acquired, or had attempted to
acquire, a permanent domicile in the City of Paris. It is evident of course that the presence of both
the spouses in that city was due merely to the mutual desire to procure a divorce from each other.
It is established by the great weight of authority that the court of a country in which neither of
the spouses is domiciled and to which one or both may resort merely for 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. The voluntary appearance of the defendant
before such a tribunal does not invest the court with jurisdiction.
It follows that, to give a court jurisdiction on the ground of the plaintiff's residence in the
State or country of the judicial forum, his residence must be bona fide. If a spouse leaves the
family domicile and goes to another State for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce, and
with no intention of remaining, his residence there is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on
the courts of that State. This is especially true where the cause of divorce is one not
recognized by the laws of the State of his own domicile.
As the divorce granted by the French court must be ignored, it results that the marriage of Doctor
Mory and Leona Castro, celebrated in London in 1905, could not legalize their relations; and the
circumstance that they afterwards passed for husband and wife in Switzerland until her death is
wholly without legal significance. The claims of the Mory children to participate in the estate of
Samuel Bischoff must therefore be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated,
and acknowledged natural children. The children of adulterous relations are wholly excluded. The
word "descendants," as used in article 941 of the Civil Code cannot be interpreted to include
illegitimates born of adulterous relations.
Even if the claims of the children were made after the probate, the same are not divested by the
decree admitting the will to probate since such decree is only conclusive as to the due execution of
the will and not its intrinsic validity.