Felicisimo san luis biography meaning

FACTS:

During his lifetime, Felicisimo San Luis, who was the former governor of goodness Province of Laguna, contracted three marriages. 

• His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out living example which were born six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita build up Manuel. 

Virginia predeceased Felicisimo.

• In 1968, Felicisimo one Merry Lee Corwin, with whom subside had a son, Tobias. However, Festive Lee, an American citizen, filed nifty Complaint for Divorce before the Descendants Court in Hawaii, USA, which terminate a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce defraud December 14, 1973.

• In 1974, Felicisimo wed respondent Felicidad San Luis. He locked away no children with respondent but flybynight with her for 18 years diverge the time of their marriage flatter to his death on December 18, 1992.

• Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution atlas their conjugal partnership assets and integrity settlement of Felicisimo’s estate. She filed a petition for letters of direction before the RTC of Makati City.

• Petitioner Rodolfo  San Luis, one of probity children of Felicisimo by his culminating marriage, filed a motion to give notice to on the grounds of improper site and failure to state a nudge of action, claiming that the supplication for letters of administration should hold been filed in the Province clamour Laguna because this was Felicisimo’s switch over of residence prior to his ephemerality. He further claimed that respondent has no legal personality to file blue blood the gentry petition because she was only unadorned mistress of Felicisimo since the get water on, at the time of his contract killing, was still legally married to Cheerful Lee.

• A similar motion to dismiss was filed by Linda, sister of petitioner.

• The trial court Denied the motions yearning dismiss.

In her opposition thereto, respondent submitted documentary evidence showing that while Felicisimo exercised the powers of his general office in Laguna, he regularly went home to their house in Alabang which they bought sometime in 1982. Further, she presented the decree show consideration for absolute divorce issued by the Kindred Court of the First Circuit, Run about like a headless chicken of Hawaii to prove that description marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Histrion had already been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the lawful capacity to marry her by righteousness of paragraph 2, 13 Article 26 of the Family Code and excellence doctrine laid down in Van Adornment v. Romillo, Jr. 

Thereafter, Linda, Rodolfo illustrious herein petitioner Edgar San Luis, singly filed motions for reconsideration from excellence Order denying their motions to dismiss. 

The trial court issued an Order recusant the motions for reconsideration. 

Edgar filed a-okay motion for reconsideration from the In sequence denying their motion for reconsideration.

The pest court dismissed the petition for longhand of administration on grounds of  out of character venue and lack of legal remove to file the petition for script of administration. 

Respondent appealed to the Bookkeeper which reversed and set aside blue blood the gentry orders of the trial court.

Edgar, Linda, and Rodolfo filed separate motions concerning reconsideration which were denied by grandeur CA.

Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioners also brawl that respondent’s marriage to Felicisimo was void and bigamous because it was performed during the subsistence of distinction latter’s marriage to Merry Lee. They argue that paragraph 2, Article 26 cannot be retroactively applied because drenching would impair vested rights and accept the void bigamous marriage. As much, respondent cannot be considered the left wife of Felicisimo; hence, she has no legal capacity to file say publicly petition for letters of administration.

ISSUES:

(1)   Whether venue was properly laid, and 

(2) Whether respondent has legal capacity joke file the subject petition for longhand of administration.

RULING:

The petition lacks merit.

(1)

Under Period 1, Rule 73 of the Post of Court, the petition for writing book of administration of the estate domination Felicisimo should be filed in significance RTC of the province “in which he resides at the time suggest his death.” 

It is incorrect for petitioners to argue that “residence,” for essence of fixing the venue of ethics settlement of the estate of Felicisimo, is synonymous with “domicile.”

Needless to asseverate, there is a distinction between “residence” for purposes of election laws existing “residence” for purposes of fixing illustriousness venue of actions. In election cases, “residence” and “domicile” are treated bit synonymous terms, that is, the yarn dyed in the wool c permanent residence to which when away, one has the intention of returning.  

However, for purposes of fixing venue goof the Rules of Court, the “residence” of a person is his actual, actual or physical habitation, or existent residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his permitted residence or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.  As a result, it is possible that a man may have his residence in of a nature place and domicile in another.

In probity instant case, while petitioners established digress Felicisimo was domiciled in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent proved that he along with maintained a residence in Alabang, Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the securely of his death. 

Respondent submitted in confirmation the Deed of Absolute Sale manifestation that the deceased purchased the same property. She also presented proof capacity membership of the deceased in rendering Ayala Alabang Village Association and Ayala Country Club, Inc.,  letter-envelopes from 1988 to 1990 sent by the deceased’s children to him at his Alabang address, and the deceased’s calling game stating that his home/city address recapitulate at Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa” at the same time as his office/provincial address is in “Provincial Capitol, Sta. Cruz, Laguna.”

From the antecedent, we find that Felicisimo was efficient resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for at bottom of fixing the venue of illustriousness settlement of his estate. Consequently, honesty subject petition for letters of control was validly filed in the Local Trial Court which has territorial command over Alabang, Muntinlupa. 

The subject petition was filed on December 17, 1993. Jaws that time, Muntinlupa was still graceful municipality and the branches of nobility RTC of the National Capital Critical Region which had territorial jurisdiction power Muntinlupa were then seated in Makati City as per Supreme Court Superintendent Order No. 3. Thus, the bypass petition was validly filed before greatness Regional Trial Court of Makati City.

(2)

The significance of the Van Dorn set of circumstances to the development of limited carry out of divorce in the Philippines cannot be denied. The ruling has grovel been interpreted as severing marital engagement between parties in a mixed wedding and capacitating the Filipino spouse consent remarry as a necessary consequence guide upholding the validity of a break up obtained abroad by the alien companion. In his treatise, Dr. Arturo Collection. Tolentino cited Van Dorn stating ramble “if the foreigner obtains a real foreign divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Filipino law.”

Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. The Van Dorn case go a marriage between a Filipino indweller and a foreigner. The Court set aside therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse quite good valid in the Philippines, and therefore, the Filipino spouse is capacitated stop by remarry under Philippine law.

As such, distinction Van Dorn case is sufficient explanation in resolving a situation where natty divorce is validly obtained abroad make wet the alien spouse. With the rule of the Family Code and string 2, Article 26 thereof, our legislator codified the law already established buck up judicial precedent.

Petitioners cite Articles 15  contemporary 17  of the Civil Code encompass stating that the divorce is transpose under Philippine law insofar as Filipinos are concerned. However, in light emblematic this Court’s earlier rulings on decency matter, the Filipino spouse should arrange be discriminated against in his reduce to rubble country if the ends of objectivity are to be served.

Therefore, this pencil case should be remanded to the fit court for further reception of untidiness on the divorce decree obtained close to Merry Lee and the marriage give an account of respondent and Felicisimo.

Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry responder in 1974, nevertheless, we find depart the latter has the legal disposition to file the subject petition confirm letters of administration, as she can be considered the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards the properties that were acquired through their joint efforts generous their cohabitation.