San Luis v. San Luis Van Dorn v.

Romilio recognized the validity of the divorce between a foreigner and

GR NO 133743 | February 6, 2007 | YNARES-SANTIAGO, J
Digest By: Rodriguez, Albert
TOPIC: Marriages dissolved by a foreign judgment
his Filipino wife and held that the alien spouse had no interest in the properties
acquired by the Filipino wife after the divorce.
In Pilapil v. Somera, the Court recognized the validity of a divorce obtained abroad.
The severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former
spouses from each other, hence the actuations of one would not affect or cast
obloquy on the other.

Further, Dr. Tolentino cited Van Dorn in his treaties stating that “if the foreigner
FACTS:
obtains a valid foreign divorce, the filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry
During Felicisimo’s lifetime, he contracted three marriages. First, his marriage was
under Philippine Law”. Hence, the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated
with Virginia on March 17, 1942 which bore six children. When Virginia died,
against in his own country if the ends of justice are to be served. In this case, the
Felicisimo married Merry Lee on May 1, 1968, with whom they had a son.
divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry which allowed Felicisimo to remarry,
However, on October 15, 1971, Merry, an American Citizen, field a complaint for
would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present petition as
Divorce before the Family Court of Hawaii. The court issued a decree granting
Felicisimo’s surviving spouse. Lastly, Garcia v. Reco provided guidelines for
absolute divorce in December 1973. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married
pleading and proving foreign law and divorce judgments such as presentation
respondent Felicidad at California, USA. Respondent lived with Felicisimo for 18
solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Thus, the case should be remanded to
years up to his death in December 1992.
the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by
Merry and the marriage of Felicisimo and respondent.
Thereafter, the respondent sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership
assets and the settlement of Felicisimo’s estate. She filed a petition for letters of
RULING
administration before the RTC and alleged that she is the widow of Felicisimo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Hence, the Felicisimo left real properties both conjual and exclusive, she prayed
Appeals reinstating and affirming the February 28, 1994 Order of the
that the conjugal partnership assets be liquidated and that the letters of
Regional Trial Court which denied petitioners' motion to dismiss and its
administration be issued to her. Trouble arose when the children of Felicisimo from
October 24, 1994 Order which dismissed petitioners' motion for reconsideration is
his previous marriages argued that respondent had no legal personality to file the
AFFIRMED. Let this case be REMANDED to the trial court
petition because she was only a mistress of Felicisimo since, at the time of his
for further proceedings.
death, he was still married to Marry Lee. Further, petitioners asserted that Art 26
SO ORDERED.
par 2 of the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect to validate
respondent’s bigamous marriage because this would impair their vested rights

ISSUE
Whether or not a Filipino who is divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly
remarry under the Civil code considering Felicidad’s marriage was solemnized
before the Family Code took effect? YES.

RATIO

The Court does not even need to retroactively apply Art 26 (2) because there is
sufficient jurisprudence regarding the matter.