Rolando L. Sergio Jr.

LS2019-00026

EDGAR SAN LUIS vs. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS

G.R. no. 133743 February 6, 2007

FACTS

The case involves the settlement of the state of the late Felicisimo San Luis,
who was the former governor of Laguna. During his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted
three marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit wherein they begot six
children, when Virginia died Felicisimo married Merry Lee Cowin whom he had as
son, Merry Lee filed for divorce befor the family court of the state of Hawaii,
which then issued a decree granting absolute divorce. Felicisimo then married
Felicidad San Luis but they never had a child but they lived together up to the
time of his death on December 18, 1992.

Felicidad sought for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership assets and
the settlement of Felicisimo’s estate. Rodolfo San Luis who is a son of Felicisimo in
the first marriage filed a motion to dismiss, he claimed that the petition should
have been filed in the province of Laguna because this was Felicisimo’s residence,
he further claimed that Felicidad had no legal personality because she was only a
mistress of his late father. The other children of Felicisimo also initiated
complaints on the same grounds as that of Rodolfo.

Felicidad submitted evidence showing that while her husband exercises the
power of his public office in Laguna, he regularly went home to their house in
Alabang, she also presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the family
court in Hawaii to prove that the marriage of Felicisimo and Merry Lee Cowin had
already been dissolved.

The trial court dismissed the petition for letters of administration, it held
that at the time of Felicisimo’s death he was the duly elected governor of Laguna;
therefore the case should have been filed in Laguna not in Makati City. The court
also ruled that she had no legal capacity to file the petition for the reason that her
marriage with Felicisimo was bigamous, thus void ab initio, the decree of absolute
divorce was not valid in the Philippines.

The case was brought to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside
the decision of the trial court. The case was then brought to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES

Whether or not the case was properly filed in the proper venue.

Whether or not respondent had legal capacity to file the petition for letters
of administration.

RULING

The case was filed in the proper court. Under Section 1,[39] Rule 73 of the
Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo
should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province "in which he resides at
the time of his death."

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.
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 [50] 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.[51] Thus, the subject petition was
validly filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.
Felicidad has legal capacity to file for the petition; her legal capacity to file
the subject petition for letters of administration may arise from her status as the
surviving wife of Felicisimo or as his co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code
or Article 148 of the Family Code.

But due to the insufficiency of evidence to prove the validity of the divorce
decree obtained in Hawaii, and that courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign
laws as they must be alleged and proved, the case was remanded back to the trial
court so that evidence could be adduced and reviewed further and to determine
the validity of the divorce decree.