ROSSANA MARIE O.

MERGAL
STUDENT NO. 14
UPHSL 1ST YEAR
COLLEGE OF LAW
x-------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 133743/134029
February 6, 2007
EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner,
vs.
FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.

FACTS:
Summary: Former Laguna governor had first spouse who predeceased him, then
married again to an American citizen who divorced him, then remarried again. He died
with his third wife but his second wife and the children in the first marriage contested
the standing of the third wife, claiming that the said marriage was bigamous since the
second marriage was still subsisting under Philippine law (can't apply Family Code
retroactively). Court held that even with Family Code not applied retroactively, Van
Dorn and other jurisprudence sufficiently provides the validity to the third marriage,
thus recognizing divorce obtained by an alien spouse against the Filipino spouse.
However, as the third marriage was not sufficiently proved, the case was remanded in
order for the third spouse to present further evidence on this.
FELICISIMO SAN LUIS contracted 3 marriages:
1. VIRGINIA SULIT: had 6 children, died before he did in 1963;
2. MERRY LEE CORWIN: US citizen, had son Tobias, divorced him before
Hawaiian courts which was granted in 1973;
3. FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS SAN LUIS: married before a Presbyterian Church in
California n 1974, lived with him until he died for 18 years in their Alabang
residence

when Felicisimo died, Felicidad filed for DISSOLUTION OF CONJUGAL

PARTNERSHIP ASSETS AND SETTLEMENT OF FELICISIMO'S ESTATE, filing
for a letter of administration before RTC Makati
petition was contested (MTD) by Felicisimo's children for 2 grounds:

1. Venue improperly laid: should have filed petition in Laguna (domicile) and
not in Makati (covers Alabang, decedent's residence at the time of his death)
2. No legal personality to sue: Felicidad is only a mistress - marriage to
Merry Lee was still valid (Family Code provision cannot be applied
retroactively as it would impair their vested rights in accordance with Article
256, FC)
these were denied but Felicidad still filed Opposition to MTD, showing evidence
of the following:

Felicisimo exercised office in Laguna, but went home in Alabang - to

prove proper venue

Decree of absolute divorce by Hawaii dissolving the marriage of Felicisimo

to Merry Lee - to prove capacity to sue

RTC Makati: Dismissed petition

CA: reversed and set aside

Place of residence should be understood in as the personal, actual or

physical habitation so petition was properly filed

Art26.2, FC should be given effect, allowing a Filipino to remarry under

Philippine law

ISSUES:
1. WON Venue properly laid?
2. WON Felicidad had capacity to sue?
HELD:
1. YES, the venue was properly laid. The cases relied upon by the petitioners were
election cases. There is a distinction between "residence" for purposes of
election laws and "residence" for purposes of fixing the venue of actions. In
election cases, "residence" and "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.
2. YES, Felicidad had capacity to sue. As the legal wife, even if Family Code not
applied retroactively, Van Dorn v. Romillo (1985) sufficiently provides the legal
basis for holding valid divorce obtained by an alien spouse against the Filipino
spouse. It look at the legislative intent of Family Code provision assailed, it was
based on the Van Dorn ruling which validates a divorce decree obtained by an
alien spouse, thus capacitating the Filipino spouse to remarry again. In this

case, as Merry Lee obtained a divorce, Felicisimo now is capacitated to marry

Felicidad. However, as the marriage between Felicidad and Felicisimo was not
sufficiently proven, remand the case to RTC. Even if not qualified as the legal
spouse, she could still petition for a letter of administration as an
"INTERESTED PARTY" with Art144, CC and A148 FC both stating that she is
considered a co-owner of properties owned by persons living as husband and
wife but whose marriage is void.