Case Summary (G.R. No. 159213)
Petitioners, Respondent and Procedural History
On December 17, 1993, respondent filed for letters of administration in the Makati RTC (Branch 146). Petitioners moved to dismiss for improper venue—claiming Laguna as decedent’s residence—and for lack of standing, alleging respondent’s marriage was void as Felicisimo remained married to his second wife, Merry Lee Corwin. The trial court denied those motions, then, after several re-rafflings and motions, ultimately dismissed the petition on venue and capacity grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, reinstating the trial court’s earlier denial of dismissal, prompting this consolidated petition for certiorari.
Factual Background
Felicisimo’s first marriage (1942) to Virginia Sulit produced six children. After her death in 1963, he married Merry Lee (1968) and was divorced by her in Hawaii (decree dated December 14, 1973). He then married respondent in Los Angeles on June 20, 1974, and co-resided with her in New Alabang Village from 1982 until his death. Respondent claimed widowhood, alleging no outstanding debts and conjugal and exclusive properties worth over ₱30 million.
Issues for Resolution
- Venue: Whether “residence” under Rule 73, Sec. 1, refers to the decedent’s actual abode or legal domicile.
- Capacity to file: Whether respondent’s capacity as surviving spouse is valid given the alleged bigamous nature of her marriage to Felicisimo and the status of the foreign divorce.
Court of Appeals Findings
The appellate court held that “residence” means actual, physical habitation distinguishable from domicile, noting evidence of Felicisimo’s Alabang address (purchase of property, utility bills, association memberships, calling cards). It deemed respondent’s marriage valid under paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code—recognizing foreign divorces obtained by alien spouses and capacitating Filipino spouses to remarry—and under Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera. It reversed the trial court orders dismissing the petition and remanded for further proceedings.
Supreme Court Analysis – Venue
Under the 1987 Constitution and Rule 73, Sec. 1, “residence” for estate settlement means personal, actual habitation. The Court reaffirmed Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals: residence requires bodily presence and continuity, not intention to return (domicile). Petitioners’ reliance on election-law domicile doctrine (Nuval, Romualdez) is misplaced. Evidence—property deed, hospital bills, village association records, correspondence—established Felicisimo’s residence in Alabang, Makati-RTC territory at petition filing. Venue was proper.
Supreme Court Analysis – Capacity to File
The Court recognized Philippine jurisprudence (Van Dorn, Pilapil, Quita, Orbecido III) and paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code as codifying the rule that a foreigner’s valid foreign divorce dissolves the marital bond, enabling the Filipino spouse to remarry and, by extension, to succeed as surviving spouse. However, respondent must properly prove the authenticity and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 159213)
Facts of the Case
- Decedent Felicisimo T. San Luis married three times:
• First to Virginia Sulit (1942; six children: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita, Manuel).
• Second to Merry Lee Corwin (1968; one child: Tobias; divorced in Hawaii, decree December 14, 1973).
• Third to Felicidad Sagalongos (June 20, 1974; no issue; cohabited for 18 years until Felicisimo’s death December 18, 1992). - Respondent Felicidad filed for letters of administration (Dec. 17, 1993) before RTC Makati, alleging she was the decedent’s surviving spouse, listing estate assets (~P30.3 M), no unpaid debts, and praying for liquidation of conjugal partnership and issuance of letters.
- Petitioners (Rodolfo, Linda, Edgar, Mila) challenged venue (claimed Laguna as decedent’s residence/domicile) and respondent’s legal capacity (asserting bigamous marriage).
Procedural History in the Trial Court
- Feb. 4 & 15, 1994: Rodolfo and Linda moved to dismiss for improper venue and lack of capacity; RTC Branch 146 denied motions (Feb. 28, 1994).
- Mar. 5, 1994: Respondent opposed, submitted evidence of decedent’s Alabang residence and Hawaii divorce decree.
- Motions for reconsideration by Linda, Rodolfo, Edgar denied (Oct. 24, 1994).
- Disqualification/inhibition motions against judges led to transfer to Branch 134 (Order Nov. 25, 1994).
- Parties filed position papers on venue and capacity (Apr–Jun 1995).
- Sept. 12, 1995: RTC Branch 134 dismissed petition, ruling:
• Venue improper (decedent a Laguna resident/governor).
• Respondent lacked cap