San Luis vs San Luis (2007)

G.R. No. 133743 | 2007-02-06

Facts:
Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, an American citizen, when his first wife died. Merry Lee,
filed for and was granted a Decree of Absolute Divorce by the family court of Hawaii, USA, in
1971. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad Sagalongos, in Los Angeles,
California, USA. They had no children but he lived with her up to his death on December 18,
1992.

Felicidad filed a petition for letters of administration before the RTC of Makati City for the
settlement of Felicisimo's estate. Rodolfo San Luis, one of Felicisimo’s children with his first
wife, filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a cause of
action. He alleged that (a) the petition should have been filed in the Province of Laguna because
this was Felicisimo's place of residence prior to his death; and that (b) respondent has no legal
personality to file the petition because Felicisimo, at the time of his death, was still legally
married to Merry Lee Corwin. Felicidad proved that Felicisimo regularly went home to their
house in Alabang, Metro Manila. She also presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the
Family Court of Hawaii to prove that the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already been
dissolved.

The RTC (Branch 146) ruled that Felicidad, as widow of the decedent, possessed the legal
standing to file the petition and that venue was properly laid. However, the case was re-raffled
and the RTC (Branch 134) 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. It also ruled that
respondent was without legal capacity to file the petition for letters of administration because
her marriage with Felicisimo was bigamous, thus, void ab initio. The CA reversed RTC Branch
134 and reinstated the decision of RTC Branch 146. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not venue was properly laid; and
(2) Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of
administration.

Held:

1. Yes. Under 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 RTC of the province "in which he resides at the time
of his death. "Resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. 
Residence simply requires bodily presence as an  inhabitant  in a given place, while domicile
requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. No
particular length of time of residence is required though; however, the residence must be more
than temporary. (see Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals)

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 RTC which has territorial jurisdiction over Alabang, Muntinlupa.

2. Yes. In the 1985 ruling in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., if the foreigner obtains a valid foreign
divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. 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.

Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry Felicidad in 1974, nevertheless, she
has the legal personality to file the subject petition for letters of administration, as the co-owner
of properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during their cohabitation, the
existence of which was not denied by petitioners.