San Luis V Sagalongos

San Luis v Sagalongos
G.R. No. 134029 6 February 2007
Facts:
The instant case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo T. San Luis. During his lifetime,
Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942. On
August 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased Felicisimo. On May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry Lee
Corwin, an American citizen. Merry filed a Complaint for Divorce before the Family Court of the First
Circuit, State of Hawaii, U.S.A., which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child
Custody on December 14, 1973. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad San Luis,
then surnamed Sagalongos, in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. He had no children with respondent but
lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on December 18, 1992.
Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the settlement
of Felicisimo’s estate.
On February 4, 1994, petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of the children of Felicisimo by his first
marriage, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a cause of
action. He further claimed that respondent has no legal personality to file the 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. The Court ruled that respondent was without legal capacity to file the petition for letters
of administration because her marriage with Felicisimo was bigamous, thus, void ab initio. It found
that the decree of absolute divorce dissolving Felicisimo’s marriage to Merry Lee was not valid in the
Philippines and did not bind Felicisimo who was a Filipino citizen. It also ruled that paragraph 2, Article
26 of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied because it would impair the vested rights of
Felicisimo’s legitimate children. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set
aside the orders of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that Felicisimo had legal capacity to
marry respondent by virtue of paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code. It found that the marriage
between Felicisimo and Merry Lee was validly dissolved by virtue of the decree of absolute divorce
issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. As a result, Felicisimo was capacitated
to contract a subsequent marriage with respondent.
Issue:
May a Filipino who is divorced by his alien spouse abroad validly remarry under the Civil Code,
considering that Felicidad’s marriage to Felicisimo was solemnized on June 20, 1974, or before the
Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988?
Ruling:
Yes, a Filipino who is divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry under the Civil Code.
The Court recognized the validity of the divorce and held that the alien spouse had no interest in the
properties acquired by the Filipino wife after the divorce. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law. Marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot
possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the marital
bond while the other remains bound to it. Such is the state of affairs where the alien spouse obtains a
valid divorce abroad against the Filipino spouse, as in this case.
Applying the above doctrine in the instant case, the divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee
which absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality
to file the present petition as Felicisimo’s surviving spouse. However, the records show that there is
insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the divorce obtained by Merry Lee as well as the
marriage of respondent and Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A. With regard to respondent’s
marriage to Felicisimo allegedly solemnized in California, U.S.A., she submitted photocopies of the
Marriage Certificate and the annotated text of the Family Law Act of California which purportedly
show that their marriage was done in accordance with the said law. Therefore, this case should be
remanded to the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by
Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
reinstating and affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court which denied petitioners’ motion to
dismiss and its Order which dismissed petitioners’ motion for reconsideration is affirmed, the case is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

San Luis V Sagalongos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Luis V Sagalongos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Luis V Sagalongos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Luis v Sagalongos

G.R. No. 134029 6 February 2007

You might also like