Casedigestno18 GR133743 134029

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

CASE DIGEST NO.

18

G.R. No. 133743


February 6, 2007
EDGAR SAN LUIS, petitioner,
vs
FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.
_____________________________

G.R. No. 134029


February 6, 2007
EDGAR SAN LUIS, petitioner,
vs
FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.

FACTS OF THE CASE:


Felicisimo T. San Luis who was the former Governor of the Province of Laguna during his lifetime
contracted three marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit to which he had six children namely
Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita, and Manuel. Five years later, he married Merry Lee Corwin an
American citizen, with whom he had son, Tobias. However, Merry Lee filed a Complaint for Divorce
before the Family Court of First Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States of America (USA), which issued a
Decreee Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody.
Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos at Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, USA. He had no children with respondent but lived with her for 18
years from the time of their marriage up to his death. Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of
their conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimo’s estate which she filed a petition of
letter of administration before the Regional Court of Makati City.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the venue was properly laid, and;
2. Whether respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition of letter of administration.
RULING:
Yes, the venue was properly laid. The supreme court says for purposes of fixing the venue of
settlement of estate of Felisicimo, the “residence” of a person is his personal, actual or physical
habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or
domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency. Hence, it is possible that a person
may have his residence in one place and domicile in another. There is a distinction between “residence”
for purposes of election laws and “residence” for purposes of fixing the venue of actions. At that time,
Muntinlupa was still a municipality and the branches of 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. Thus, the subject petition was validly filed before the RTC of
Makati City.
Yes, the respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration.
Even assuming that Felisicimo was not capacitated to marry respondent, she may be considered co-
owner of Felisicimo as regards the properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during their
cohabitation.

Eric M. Recomendable
Arellano University School of Law

You might also like