San Luiz vs.

San Luiz
Facts:

settlement of the estate of Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo), who was the formergovernor of the Province of Laguna.
During his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted three marriages.

 First marriage with Virginia, she died. 6 children

 2nd marriage to Mary Lee. She filed a decree of absolute divorce in Hawai. 1 child
 He married Felicidad – no children but 18 yrs

 He died in Dec 1992, Sspouse sought for

 sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimo’sestate. On
December 17, 1993, she filed a petition for letters of administration 8 before the Regional Trial Court ofMakati
City,. Amount is aroung 30miliion

 SS alleged that she is the widow and that at the time of his death he was living in Alabang

 Rodolfo, one of the children filed motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a
cause of action

 Petitioner 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 filethe 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

 RTC ruled in favor of Petioner,

 CA reversed.

Issue: (1) whether venue was properly laid, and (2) whether respondent has legal capacity to filethe subject
petition for letters of administration.

Ruling: 1. YES. 2. YES.

Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the term "place of residence" of thedecedent, for purposes of fixing the
venue of the settlement of his estate, refers to the personal, actual or physicalhabitation, or actual residence or
place of abode of a person as distinguished from legal residence or domicile noted that although Felicisimo
discharged his functions as governor in Laguna, he act he actually resided in Alabang,Muntinlupa. Thus, the
petition for letters of administration was properly filed in Makati City.
The Court of Appeals also held that Felicisimo had legal capacity to marry respondent by virtue of paragraph
2,Article 26 of the Family Code and the rulings in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.It foundthat the marriage between
Felicisimo and Merry Lee was validly dissolved by virtue of the decree of absolutedivorce issued by the Family
Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. As a result, under paragraph 2, Article 26,Felicisimo was capacitated
to contract a subsequent marriage with responden