San Luis vs.

San Luis

1.
2.
3.

2.

Short Summary: Former Laguna governor had 1st spouse

who predeceased him, then married again to an
American citizen who divorced him, then remarried
again. He died with his 3rd wife but his 2nd wife and the
children in the 1st marriage contested the standing of
the 3rd wife, claiming that the said marriage was
bigamous since the 2nd marriage was still subsisting
under RP law (can't apply FC retroactively). Court held
that even with FC not applied retroactively, Van Dorn
and other jurisprudence sufficiently provides the validity
to the 3rd marriage, thus recognizing divorce obtained
by an alien spouse against the Filipino spouse. However,
as the 3rd marriage was not sufficiently proved, the case
was remanded in order for the 3rd spouse to present
further evidence on this.FactsFELICISIMO SAN LUIS
contracted 3 marriages:
VIRGINIA SULIT: had 6 children, died before he did in
1963
MERRY LEE CORWIN: US citizen, had son Tobias, divorced
him before Hawaiian courts which was granted in 1973
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

1.

2.

3.
1.
2.

4.
1.

2.

before RTC Makati-petition was contested (MTD) by

Felicisimo's children for 2 grounds:
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)
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 ff:
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 petitionCA: 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

5.
6.

ISSUE: WON Venue properly laid? YES

-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

1.

7.

1.

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.
ISSUE: WON Felicidad had capacity to sue? YES
As the legal wife: even if FC 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 (as well as other
cases which were in Ma'am's book)
-it look at the legislative intent of FC 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.