San Luis v. San Luis Feb. 6, 2007

EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner, vs.
FELICIDAD SAN been filed in the Province of Laguna because this

LUIS, Respondent. | G.R. No. 133743 February 6, was Felicisimo’s place of residence prior to his
2007 | YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: death. He further claimed that respondent has no
legal personality to file the petition because she
This is a consolidated petition for review assailing was only a mistress of Felicisimo since the latter,
the Decision of CA. at the time of his death, was still legally married to
Merry Lee.
FACTS: The instant case involves the settlement of
the estate of Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo), Respondent filed her opposition claiming that
who was the former governor of the Province of Felicisimo had the legal capacity to marry her by
Laguna. During his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted virtue of paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family
three marriages. Code and the doctrine laid down in Van Dorn v.
Romillo, Jr.
His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit out of
which were born six children. Virginia The trial court issued an Order denying the
predeceased Felicisimo. motion to dismiss.
Five years later, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Rodolfo and herein petitioner Edgar San Luis,
Corwin, with whom he had a son. However, Merry separately filed motions for reconsideration from
Lee, an American citizen, filed a Complaint for the Order denying their motions to dismiss
Divorce before the Family Court of the First asserting that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the
Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States of America Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect to
(U.S.A.), which issued a Decree Granting Absolute validate respondent’s bigamous marriage with
Divorce and Awarding Child Custody. Felicisimo because this would impair vested rights
in derogation of Article 256 of the Family Code.
Later on, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad
San Luis. He had no children with respondent but The trial court dismissed the petition for letters of
lived with her for 18 years from the time of their administration. It held that, at the time of his
marriage up to his death. death, Felicisimo was the duly elected governor
and a resident of the Province of Laguna. Hence,
Thereafter, respondent sought the settlement of
the petition should have been filed in Sta. Cruz,
Felicisimo’s estate. She filed a petition for letters
Laguna and not in Makati City. It also ruled that
of administration before the RTC of Makati City
respondent was without legal capacity to file the
alleging that she is the widow of Felicisimo; that,
petition for letters of administration because her
at the time of his death, the decedent was residing
marriage with Felicisimo was bigamous, thus, void
in Alabang; that the decedent’s surviving heirs are
ab initio. It found that the decree of absolute
respondent as legal spouse, his six children by his
divorce dissolving Felicisimo’s marriage to Merry
first marriage, and son by his second marriage;
Lee was not valid in the Philippines and did not
that the decedent left real properties, both
bind Felicisimo who was a Filipino citizen. It also
conjugal and exclusive, valued at ₱30,304,178.00
ruled that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family
more or less; that the decedent does not have any
Code cannot be retroactively applied because it
unpaid debts. Respondent prayed that the
would impair the vested rights of Felicisimo’s
conjugal partnership assets be liquidated and that
legitimate children.
letters of administration be issued to her.
Respondent appealed to the CA which reversed
Petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of the children of
and set aside the orders of the trial court. The
Felicisimo by his first marriage, filed a motion to
appellant court ruled that under Section 1, Rule 73
dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and
of the Rules of Court, the term "place of residence"
failure to state a cause of action claiming that the
of the decedent, for purposes of fixing the venue of
petition for letters of administration should have
the settlement of his estate, refers to the personal, that Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang,
actual or physical habitation, or actual residence Muntinlupa for purposes of fixing the venue of the
or place of abode of a person as distinguished settlement of his estate. Consequently, the subject
from legal residence or domicile. The Court of petition for letters of administration was validly
Appeals also held that Felicisimo had legal filed in the Regional Trial Court which has
capacity to marry respondent by virtue of territorial jurisdiction over Alabang, Muntinlupa.
paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code and the
rulings in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. and Pilapil v. (2) In this case, the divorce in Nevada released
Ibay-Somera. It found that the marriage between private respondent from the marriage from the
Felicisimo and Merry Lee was validly dissolved by standards of American law, under which divorce
virtue of the decree of absolute divorce issued by dissolves the marriage.
the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of
The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry
Hawaii.
Lee which absolutely allowed Felicisimo to
Edgar appealed to this Court via the instant remarry, would have vested Felicidad with the
petition for review on certiorari. legal personality to file the present petition as
Felicisimo’s surviving spouse. However, the
ISSUE: (1) whether venue was properly laid, and records show that there is insufficient evidence to
(2) whether respondent has legal capacity to file prove the validity of the divorce obtained by
the subject petition for letters of administration Merry Lee as well as the marriage of respondent
and Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A. In
HELD: (1) NO. It is incorrect for petitioners to Garcia v. Recio, the Court laid down the specific
argue that "residence," for purposes of fixing the guidelines for pleading and proving foreign law
venue of the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo, and divorce judgments. It held that presentation
is synonymous with "domicile." The rulings in solely of the divorce decree is insufficient and that
Nuval and Romualdez are inapplicable to the proof of its authenticity and due execution must
instant case because they involve election cases. be presented. Therefore, this case should be
Needless to say, there is a distinction between remanded to the trial court for further reception
"residence" for purposes of election laws and of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by
"residence" for purposes of fixing the venue of Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and
actions. In election cases, "residence" and Felicisimo.
"domicile" are treated as synonymous terms, that
is, the fixed permanent residence to which when
absent, one has the intention of
returning. However, 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. Hence, it is possible
that a person may have his residence in one place
and domicile in another.
In the instant case, 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

San Luis v. San Luis Feb. 6, 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Luis v. San Luis Feb. 6, 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Luis v. San Luis Feb. 6, 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner, vs.

FELICIDAD SAN been filed in the Province of Laguna because this

In the instant case, while petitioners established

You might also like