SAN LUIS vs SAN LUIS

Facts
FELICISIMO SAN LUIS contracted 3 marriages:
VIRGINIA SULIT: had 6 children, died before he did in 1963
MERRY LEE CORWIN: US citizen, had son Tobias, divorced him before Hawaiian courts which
was granted in 1973
FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS SAN LUIS: married before a Presbyterian Church in California n
1974, lived with him until he died for 18 years in their Alabang residence
-when Felicisimo died, Felicidad filed for DISSOLUTION OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ASSETS
AND SETTLEMENT OF FELICISIMO'S ESTATE, filing for a letter of administration before RTC
Makati
-petition was contested (MTD) by Felicisimo's children for 2 grounds:
Venue improperly laid: should have filed petition in Laguna (domicile) and not in Makati (covers
Alabang, decedent's residence at the time of his death)
No legal personality to sue: Felicidad is only a mistress - marriage to Merry Lee was still valid
(Family Code provision cannot be applied retroactively as it would impair their vested rights in
accordance with Article 256, FC)
---these were denied but Felicidad still filed Opposition to MTD, showing evidence of the ff:
Felicisimo exercised office in Laguna, but went home in Alabang - to prove proper venue
Decree of absolute divorce by Hawaii dissolving the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee - to prove
capacity to sue
RTC Makati: Dismissed petition
CA: reversed and set aside
Place of residence should be understood in as the personal, actual or physical habitation so
petition was properly filed
Art26.2, FC should be given effect, allowing a Filipino to remarry under Philippine law
WON Venue properly laid? YES
-The cases relied upon by the petitioners were election cases.
-there is a distinction between "residence" for purposes of election laws and "residence" for
purposes of fixing the venue of actions. In election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are treated as
synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one has the
intention of returning. However, for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, 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.
WON Felicidad had capacity to sue? YES

As the legal wife: even if FC not applied retroactively, Van Dorn v. Romillo (1985) sufficiently
provides the legal basis for holding valid divorce obtained by an alien spouse against the Filipino
spouse (as well as other cases which were in Ma'am's book)
-it look at the legislative intent of FC provision assailed, it was based on the Van Dorn ruling which
validates a divorce decree obtained by an alien spouse, thus capacitating the Filipino spouse to
remarry again
---In this case, as Merry Lee obtained a divorce, Felicisimo now is capacitated to marry Felicidad.
However, as the marriage between Felicidad and Felicisimo was not sufficiently proven, remand
the case to RTC
Even if not qualified as the legal spouse, she could still petition for a letter of administration as an
"INTERESTED PARTY" with Art144, CC and A148 FC both stating that she is considered a coowner of properties owned by persons living as husband and wife but whose marriage is void.