PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS ATTY.

JACQUELINE GUZMAN DLSUCOLB72019

SAN LUIS V. SAN LUIS

(G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007)
DOCTRINE:
There is no need to retroactively apply the provisions of the Family Code, particularly
Art. 26 (2), considering that there is sufficient jurisprudential basis allowing the Court to rule in the
affirmative.

HELD/RATIO
Even if the Court does not apply Article 26, Par. 2 of the Family Code, there
is sufficient jurisprudential basis in the case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. [oo nalang kung

EMERGENCY RECIT:
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.
FACTS:

The case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo San Luis. During his
lifetime Felicisimo contracted three marriages. From the first marriage contracted in
1942 he had six children, two of whom are the petitioners in this case. His first wife
died in 1963 and his second marriage to an American citizen ended in the wife getting
a divorce in 1971. In 1974 Felicismo married Felicidad, the respondent in this case, in
the USA. They had no children but lived together for 18 years until Felicismo died in
1992.

di niyo maalala ito, guys] where it was held that a Filipino spouse should no longer be
considered married if the alien spouse validly obtains a divorce outside of the
Philippines. [Remember that in Van Dorn the Court applied the nationality principle in
Article 15 of the Civil Code] Indeed, in cases like Quita v. Dandan and Republic v.
Orbecido III [again, kung di niyo maalala, oo nalang, haha] it was pointed out that Par.
2, Article 26 of the Family Code traces its origins to the ruling in Van Dorn. However,
since Felicidad failed to present the necessary evidence to prove the divorce decree
(recall Garcia v. Recio: copy of the law, final decree of absolute divorce) as well as her
marriage solemnized in California, the case is remanded to the trial court for further
reception of evidence.
Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry
Felicidad, Felicidad still has legal personality to file the petition for letters of
administration, as she may be considered the co-owner of the properties that were
acquired through their joint efforts during their cohabitation. Sec. 2, Rule 79 provides (in
part) that a petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person.
Felicidad qualifies as an interested person with direct interest in the estate of Felicisimo
by virtue of their 18-year cohabitation. If she proves the validity of the divorce but fails

After Felicisimos death, Felicidad sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership

to prove her marriage, she may be considered a co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil

assets and filed a petition for letters of administration. The children of Felicisimo from

Code. If she fails to prove the validity of both the divorce and the marriage, Article 148

his first marriage opposed this on the grounds that Felicidad is only a mistress, the

of the Family Code would apply. Article 148 states that couples who are incapacitated

second marriage to the American wife subsisting. The petitioners claimed that Article

to marry but still live together as husband and wife have co-ownership over properties

26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect to validate the

acquired during their cohabitation in proportion to their respective contributions.

bigamous marriage because it would impair the vested rights of Felicisimos legitimate
children (Article 256 of the Family Code).
*Note: There is another issue raised here, but I dont think Maam will care about it.
Felicidad filed the petition for letters of administration in Makati. Petitioners claimed it

ISSUE:

should have been filed in Laguna, where the deceased was governor, interpreting
1)

Whether or not respondent Felicidad have legal capacity to file the petition for
letters of administration? --YES

residence as domicile. The SC did not uphold this, interpreting resides in Sec. 1,
Rule 73 of the Rules of Court to mean actual or physical habitation of a person, not
legal residence or domicile.