IN RE ESTATE OF ATANACIO FAJARDO, DECEASED. MARCELINA FAJARDO, GARDA MARINE, INC. AND NAVIERA TURRIALBA, S.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
NORMITA STO. DOMINGO, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida appellate court addresses the validity of a Philippine marriage and the proper distribution of an intestate estate of a Philippine national who died in a maritime accident in Miami. The court affirms the probate judge's finding that the decedent was legally married but reverses and remands regarding the distribution order, which improperly excluded the decedent's mother as a beneficiary.
The court affirmed the finding that the decedent was legally married to Normita Sto. Domingo Fajardo under Philippine law based on the totality of evidence presented. However, the court reversed the beneficiary order because under Philippine law, when a widow survives with legitimate parents, both the spouse and parents are entitled to shares of the estate—the spouse receives one-half and the parents the other half.
[1] Under Philippine law, a presumption of lawful marriage exists when a man and woman deport themselves as husband and wife, even if common law marriages are not recognized.
[2] Evidence of capacity to marry, a marriage contract with a verified signature, cohabitation as husband and wife, and listing a partner as spouse on employment forms can es…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there is a presumption that "a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage."”
Establishes the Philippine law presumption validating the alleged marriage based on the parties' conduct and presentation to others.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAtanacio Fajardo, a Philippine national, was killed in an accident aboard a vessel in Miami harbor. The decedent died intestate. Marcelina Fajardo (th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intestate Succession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny appellants’ motion for rehearing. We grant appellants’ motion for clarification and substitute the following for the original opinion: In this consolidated action, Marcelina Fajardo, mother of decedent, Atanacio Fajardo, a Philippine national killed in an accident aboard a vessel in the Miami harbor, claims the probate judge in the proceeding below erred both in determining decedent was legally married to appellee Normita Sto. Domingo Fajardo and in issuing an “Order Determining Benefi ciary,” naming only appellee as a beneficiary. Also, Naviera Turrialba and Garda Marine, Inc., the vessel’s charterer and owner, respectively, appeal the determination of beneficiary.
As to the validity of the Philippine marriage of Atanacio Fajardo and Normita Sto. Domingo Fajardo, while common law marriages are not recognized in the Philippines, there is a presumption that “a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.” Suarnaba v. Workman’s Comp., 85 Phil. 502 (1978). The probate judge in the instant action was presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the decedent and appellee were legally married. Evidence demonstrated both parties were capacitated to contract a valid marriage. A marriage contract was submitted into evidence as was the testimony of a handwriting expert who affirmed that the signature on the document was that of decedent. See Alvado v. City Government of Tacloban, 139 Phil. 230 (1985). In addition to living together as husband and wife, decedent had listed appellee as his wife on several employment forms, see People v. Borromeo, 133 Phil. 106 (1984), and decedent’s last employer had, in fact, notified appellee of the fatal accident immediately after it occurred. See Suarnaba, 85 Phil, at 503. All these facts were indicia, under Philippine law, that a legal marriage had occurred.
The trial court’s failure to list decedent’s mother in addition to appellee as a beneficiary was, however, error. Section 731.106(2), Florida Statutes (1991) states in part:
The court may, and in the case of a decedent who was at the time of his death a resident of a foreign country the court shall, direct the personal representative appointed in this state to make distribution directly to those designated by the decedent’s will as beneficiaries of the tangible or intangible property, or to the persons entitled to receive the decedent’s personal estate under the laws of the decedent’s domicile, as the case may be. (emphasis added).
Decedent died intestate. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 997 (1988):
When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-half the estate, and the legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half. (emphasis added).
Thus, the order determining beneficiaries should have acknowledged the status of decedent’s mother as well as his wife.
Accordingly, the lower court’s order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded for revision of the order under review.