Edgar San Luis v.

Felicidad San Luis

G.R. No. 133743 (February 6, 2007)
Facts:
The case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo San Luis, who was
previously the governor of the Province of Laguna. During the lifetime of Felicisimo,
he was married to three women. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit who
predeceased Felicisimo. The second marriage was with Merry Lee Corwin, an
American citizen, who later obtained a decree granting absolute divorce before the
family court of Hawaii. The third marriage was with the respondent, Felicidad
Sagalongos, who he lived with for 18 years up to the time of his death.
After the death of Felicisimo, the respondent sought for the dissolution of their
conjugal assets and the settlement of the estate. A petition for administration was
then filed before the RTC of Makati City.
The children of Felicisimo from his first marriage filed a motion to dismiss on the
following grounds: (1) venue was improperly laid since the petition should be filed in
Laguna where Felicisimo was the elected governor; (2) Respondent does not have
legal capacity to sue because her marriage with Felicisimo is bigamous and the
decree of absolute decree is not binding in the Philippines.
The RTC granted the motion to dismiss. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision.
Issues:
1. Whether venue was properly laid.
2. Whether the respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters
of administration
Held:
1. Venue was properly laid. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the
petition for letters of administration of the estate should be filed in the RTC of
the province in which he resides at the time of his death. In the case of Garcia
Fule v. CA, we laid down the rule that for determining venue, the residence of the
decedent is determining. Residence for settlement of estate purposes means his
personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence of place of abode,
which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides
therein with continuity and consistency. It is possible that a person may have his
residence in one place and domicile in another.
2. The divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee Corwin, which absolutely allowed
Felicisimo to remarry would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to
file the present petition as the surviving spouse. However, the respondent was
not able to provide sufficient documentation to prove the decree of divorce
obtained in Hawaii.

Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry respondent in 1974,
nevertheless, we find that the latter has the legal personality to file the subject
petition for letters of administration as she may be considered the co-owner of
Felicisimo as regards the properties acquired during their cohabitation.
The case is therefore remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.

SAN LUIS V. SAN LUISFebruary 6, 2007

(Under Property Regimes of Unions Without Marriage)
Two consolidated cases:
Edgar San Luis v. Felicidad San Luis, Rodolfo San Luis v. Felicidad San
LuisBackground:The case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo San
Luis. During his lifetimeFelicisimo contracted three marriages. From the first
marriage contracted in 1942 he had six children, twoof whom are the petitioners in
this case. His first wife died in 1963 and his second marriage to anAmerican citizen
ended in the wife getting a divorce in 1971. In 1974 Felicismo married Felicidad,
therespondent in this case, in the USA. They had no children but lived together for
18 years until Felicismodied in 1992.After Felicisimos death, Felicidad sought the
dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets andfiled a petition for letters of
administration. The children of Felicisimo from his first marriage opposedthis on the
grounds that Felicidad is only a mistress, the second marriage to the American wife
subsisting.The petitioners claimed that Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code
cannot be given retroactive effectto validate the bigamous marriage because it
would impair the vested rights of Felicisimos legitimatechildren (Article 256 of the
Family Code).Issue/Held/Ratio:
Does the respondent Felicidad have legal capacity to file the petition for letters of
administration?
YES.Even if the Court does not apply Article 26, Par. 2 of the Family Code, there is
sufficient jurisprudential basis in the case of
Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.
[oo nalang kung di niyo maalala ito, guys]where it was held that a Filipino spouse
should no longer be considered married if the alien spouse validlyobtains a divorce
outside of the Philippines. [Remember that in Van Dorn the Court applied
thenationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code] Indeed, in cases like Quita v.
Dandan and Republicv. Orbecido III [again, kung di niyo maalala, oo nalang, haha] it
was pointed out that Par. 2, Article 26 of the Family Code traces its origins to the
ruling in Van Dorn.
However,
since Felicidad failed to presentthe necessary evidence to prove the divorce decree
(recall Garcia v. Recio: copy of the law, final decreeof absolute divorce) as well as
her marriage solemnized in California, the case is remanded to the trialcourt for
further reception of evidence.
Ev
en assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry Felicidad
, Felicidad still haslegal personality to file the petition for letters of administration,
as she may be considered the co-owner of the properties that were acquired

through their joint efforts during their cohabitation. Sec. 2, Rule 79 provides (in part)
that a petition for letters of administration must be filed by an
interested person.
Felicidad qualifies as an interested person with direct interest in the estate of
Felicisimo by virtue of their 18-year cohabitation. If she proves the validity of the
divorce but fails to prove her marriage, she may beconsidered a co-owner under
Article 144 of the Civil Code. If she fails to prove the validity of both thedivorce and
the marriage, Article 148 of the Family Code would apply. Article 148 states that
coupleswho are incapacitated to marry but still live together as husband and wife
have co-ownership over properties acquired during their cohabitation in proportion
to their respective contributions.*Note: There is another issue raised here, but I
dont think Maam will care about it. Felicidad filed the petition for letters of
administration in Makati. Petitioners claimed it should have been filed in
Laguna,where the deceased was governor, interpreting residence as domicile.
The SC did not uphold this,interpreting resides in Sec. 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of
Court to mean actual or physical habitation of a person, not legal residence or
domicile.

FACTS:

During his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage was
with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were born six children, namely:
Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita and Manuel. On August 11, 1963, Virginia
predeceased Felicisimo.
Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom
he had a son, Tobias. However, on October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American
citizen, filed a Complaint for Divorce before the Family Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii, United States of America (U.S.A.), which issued a Decree Granting
Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody on December 14, 1973. On June 20,
1974, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos,
before Rev. Fr.
William Meyer, Minister of the United Presbyterian at Wilshire Boulevard, Los
Angeles, California, U.S.A. He had no children with respondent but lived with her for
18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on December 18, 1992.
Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets
and the settlement of Felicisimos estate. On December 17, 1993, she filed a
petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court
On February 4, 1994, petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of the children of Felicisimo by
his first marriage, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and
failure to state a cause of action. Rodolfo claimed that the petition for letters of
administration should have been filed in the Province of Laguna because this was
Felicisimos place of residence prior to his death. He further claimed that respondent
has no legal personality to file the petition because she was only a mistress of
Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death, was still legally married to Merry
Lee.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

(1) Trial Court: denied the motion to dismiss, ruled that respondent, as widow of the
decedent, possessed the legal standing to file the petition and that venue was
properly laid. Mila filed a motion for inhibition against Judge Tensuan on November
16, 1994. Thus, a new trial ensued.
(2) Trial Court (new): dismissed the petition for letters of administration. It held that,
at the time of his death, Felicisimo was the duly elected governor and a resident of
the Province of Laguna. Hence, the petition should have been filed in Sta. Cruz,
Laguna and not in Makati City. It found that the decree of absolute divorce
dissolving Felicisimos marriage to Merry Lee was not valid in the Philippines and did
not bind Felicisimo who was a Filipino citizen. It also ruled that paragraph 2, Article
26 of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied because it would impair the
vested rights of Felicisimos legitimate children.

(3) CA: reversed and set aside the orders of the trial court

ISSUES:
(1) Whether venue was properly laid, and
(2) Whether a Filipino who is divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly
remarry under the Civil Code, considering that Felicidads marriage to Felicisimo was
solemnized on June 20, 1974, or before the Family Code took effect on August 3,
1988.
(3) Whether respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of
administration.

RULING:
(1) Yes, the venue was proper. Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition
for letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional
Trial Court of the province "in which he resides at the time of his death."
For purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the "residence" of a person is
his personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode,
which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides
therein with continuity and consistency. While petitioners established that Felicisimo
was domiciled in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent proved that he also maintained a
residence in Alabang, Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his death. From the
foregoing, we find that Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for
purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate.
(2) Yes. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v.
Romillo, Jr. The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner. The Court held therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien
spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is
capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. As such, the Van Dorn case is sufficient
basis in resolving a situation where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse. With the enactment of the Family Code and paragraph 2, Article 26 thereof,
our lawmakers codified the law already established through judicial precedent.
The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which absolutely allowed
Felicisimo to remarry, would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file
the present petition as Felicisimos surviving spouse. However, the records show
that there is insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the divorce obtained by
Merry Lee as well as the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo under the laws of
the U.S.A.
With regard to respondents marriage to Felicisimo allegedly solemnized in
California, U.S.A., she submitted photocopies of the Marriage Certificate and the
annotated text of the Family Law Act of California which purportedly show that their
marriage was done in accordance with the said law. As stated in Garcia, however,

the Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged and
proved.Therefore, this case should be remanded to the trial court for further
reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the
marriage of respondent and Felicisimo.
(3) Yes. Respondents legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of
administration may arise from her status as the surviving wife of Felicisimo or as his
co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code or Article 148 of the Family Code.

Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry respondent in 1974,
nevertheless, we find that the latter has the legal personality to file the subject
petition for letters of administration, as she may be considered the co-owner of
Felicisimo as regards the properties that were acquired through their joint efforts
during their cohabitation.

During his lifetime, Felicisimo San Luis (Rodolfo San Luiss dad) contracted three
marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which
were born six children. On August 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased Felicisimo.

Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom
he had a son, Tobias. However, on October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American
citizen, filed a Complaint for Divorce before the Family Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii, which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding
Child Custody on December 14, 1973. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married
Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos. He had no children with Felicidad but
lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on
December 18, 1992. Upon death of his dad, Rodolfo sought the dissolution of their
Felicisimos conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimos estate.
On December 17, 1993, Felicidad filed a petition for letters of administration before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Rodolfo claimed that Felicidad has no legal
personality to file the petition because she was only a mistress of Felicisimo since
the latter, at the time of his death, was still legally married to Merry Lee. Felicidad
presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the Family Court of the First
Circuit, State of Hawaii to prove that the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had
already been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the legal capacity to
marry her by virtue of paragraph 2 Article 26 of the Family Code.

Rodolfo asserted that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be given
retroactive effect to validate Felicidads bigamous marriage with Felicisimo because
this would impair vested rights in derogation of Article 256.

ISSUE: Whether or not Felicidad may file for letters of administration over
Felicisimos estate.

HELD: The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which absolutely allowed
Felicisimo to remarry, would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file
the present petition as Felicisimos surviving spouse. However, the records show
that there is insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the divorce obtained by
Merry Lee as well as the marriage of Felicidad and Felicisimo under the laws of the
U.S.A. In Garcia v. Recio, the Court laid down the specific guidelines for pleading and
proving foreign law and divorce judgments. It held that presentation solely of the
divorce decree is insufficient and that proof of its authenticity and due execution
must be presented. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document
may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an
official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody
of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a)
accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in
the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

With regard to Felicidads marriage to Felicisimo allegedly solemnized in California,

U.S.A., she submitted photocopies of the Marriage Certificate and the annotated
text of the Family Law Act of California which purportedly show that their marriage
was done in accordance with the said law. As stated in Garcia, however, the Court
cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged and proved.

The case should be remanded to the trial court for further reception of evidence on
the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and
Felicisimo.