Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Effects of Foreign Divorce Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Renz Guiang
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petition for letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City as Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa at the time of his death, and Makati had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa at that time. 2) Respondent Felicidad has legal capacity and interest in Felicisimo's estate as his cohabitating partner for 18 years prior to his death, and could be considered a co-owner of property acquired during their union under Article 144 if the divorce from his prior spouse is proven valid. 3) The case is remanded to the trial court for

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Effects of Foreign Divorce Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Renz Guiang
    27 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petition for letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City as Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa at the time of his death, and Makati had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa at that time. 2) Respondent Felicidad has legal capacity and interest in Felicisimo's estate as his cohabitating partner for 18 years prior to his death, and could be considered a co-owner of property acquired during their union under Article 144 if the divorce from his prior spouse is proven valid. 3) The case is remanded to the trial court for

    Original Description:

    123

    Original Title

    san luis

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petition for letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City as Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa at the time of his death, and Makati had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa at that time. 2) Respondent Felicidad has legal capacity and interest in Felicisimo's estate as his cohabitating partner for 18 years prior to his death, and could be considered a co-owner of property acquired during their union under Article 144 if the divorce from his prior spouse is proven valid. 3) The case is remanded to the trial court for

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views2 pages

    Effects of Foreign Divorce Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Renz Guiang
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petition for letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City as Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa at the time of his death, and Makati had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa at that time. 2) Respondent Felicidad has legal capacity and interest in Felicisimo's estate as his cohabitating partner for 18 years prior to his death, and could be considered a co-owner of property acquired during their union under Article 144 if the divorce from his prior spouse is proven valid. 3) The case is remanded to the trial court for

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EFFECTS OF FOREIGN DIVORCE

    EDGAR SAN LUIS vs. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS


    G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007

    Facts:
    The instant case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo T. San Luis, who was the
    former governor of the Province of Laguna. 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 Felicisimo’s estate. On December 17, 1993, she filed a petition for letters of administration before
    the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Respondent alleged that she is the widow of Felicisimo;
    that, at the time of his death, the decedent was residing at 100 San Juanico Street, New Alabang
    Village, Alabang, Metro Manila; that the decedent’s surviving heirs are respondent as legal spouse,
    his six children by his first marriage, and son by his second marriage; that the decedent left real
    properties, both conjugal and exclusive, valued at P30,304,178.00 more or less; that the decedent
    does not have any unpaid debts. Respondent prayed that the conjugal partnership assets be
    liquidated and that letters of administration be issued to her. 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 Felicisimo’s 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. On February 15, 1994, Linda invoked
    the same grounds and joined her brother Rodolfo in seeking the dismissal of the petition. On
    February 28, 1994, the trial court issued an Order denying the two motions to dismiss.

    On September 12, 1995, the trial court 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. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the
    orders of the trial court in its assailed Decision dated February 4, 1998

    Issues:
    a) Whether or not the venue was properly laid in the case
    b) Whether or not respondent Felicidad has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters
    of administration?

    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court finds that Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for
    purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate. Consequently, the subject petition for
    letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court which has territorial jurisdiction
    over Alabang, Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on December 17, 1993. At that time,
    Muntinlupa was still a municipality and the branches of the Regional Trial Court of the National
    Capital Judicial Region which had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa were then seated in Makati
    City as per Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 3. Thus, the subject petition was validly filed
    before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.

    On the second issue, the Supreme Court held that respondent would qualify as an interested
    person who has a direct interest in the estate of Felicisimo by virtue of their cohabitation, the
    existence of which was not denied by petitioners. If she proves the validity of the divorce and
    Felicisimo’s capacity to remarry, but fails to prove that her marriage with him was validly performed
    under the laws of the U.S.A., then she may be considered as a co-owner under Article 144 of the
    Civil Code. This provision governs the property relations between parties who live together as
    husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void from the beginning. It
    provides that the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their
    wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In a co-ownership, it is not
    necessary that the property be acquired through their joint labor, efforts and industry. Any property
    acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts.
    Hence, the portions belonging to the co-owners shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is
    proven. The case therefore is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the evidence to
    prove the validity of the divorce between Felicisimo and Merry Lee.

    You might also like