SCRA San Luis v. San Luis
SCRA San Luis v. San Luis
*
G.R. No. 133743. February 6, 2007.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
295
VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 6, 2007 295
297
YNARESSANTIAGO, J.:
_______________
298
_______________
5 Records, p. 125.
6 Id., at p. 137.
7 Id., at p. 116.
8 Id., at pp. 15.
299
_______________
300
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
San Luis vs. San Luis
_______________
301
_______________
22 Id., at p. 301.
23 Id., at pp. 302303.
24 Id., at pp. 306311.
25 Id., at pp. 318320.
26 Id., at pp. 339349.
27 Id., at pp. 350354.
28 Id., at pp. 391393.
302
_______________
303
_______________
304
_______________
305
_______________
306
provided he 43
resides therein with continuity and
consistency. Hence, it is possible that a person may have
his residence in one place and domicile in another.
In the instant case, while petitioners established that
Felicisimo was domiciled in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent
proved that he also maintained a residence in Alabang,
Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his death.
Respondent
44
submitted in evidence the Deed of Absolute
Sale dated January 5, 1983 showing that the deceased
purchased the aforesaid
45
property. She also presented
billing statements from the Philippine Heart Center and
Chinese General Hospital for the period August to
December 1992 indicating the address of Felicisimo at 100
San Juanico, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa. Respondent
also presented proof of membership 46of the deceased in the
Ayala Alabang
47
Village Association
48
and Ayala Country
Club, Inc., letterenvelopes from 1988 to 1990 sent by the
deceaseds children to him
49
at his Alabang address, and the
deceaseds calling cards stating that his home/city address
is at 100 San Juanico, Ayala Alabang Village,
Muntinlupa while his office/provincial address is in
Provincial Capitol, Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
From the foregoing, we find that Felicisimo was a
resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for purposes of fixing the
venue of the settlement of his estate. Consequently, the
subject petition for letters of administration was validly
filed in the Regional
_______________
43 See Boleyley v. Villanueva, 373 Phil. 141, 146 314 SCRA 364, 368
(1999) Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc. v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L22795,
January 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 124, 128129.
44 Records, pp. 7678.
45 Id., at pp. 6075.
46 Id., at p. 79.
47 Id., at p. 80.
48 Id., at pp. 8183.
49 Id., at p. 84.
307
50
Trial Court which has territorial jurisdiction over
Alabang, Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on
December 17, 1993. At that time, Muntinlupa was still a
municipality and the branches of the Regional Trial Court
of the National Capital Judicial Region which had
territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa were then seated in
Makati 51
City as per Supreme Court Administrative Order
No. 3. Thus, the subject petition was validly filed before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.
Anent the issue of respondent Felicidads legal
personality to file the petition for letters of administration,
we must first resolve the issue of whether a Filipino who is
divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry
under the Civil Code, considering that Felicidads marriage
to Felicisimo was solemnized on June 20, 1974, or before
the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. In resolving
this issue, we need not retroactively apply the provisions of
the Family Code, particularly Art. 26, par. (2) considering
that there is sufficient jurisprudential basis allowing us to
rule in the affirmative.
_______________
50 The Regional Trial Court and not the Municipal Trial Court had
jurisdiction over this case because the value of Gov. San Luis estate
exceeded P200,000.00 as provided for under B.P. Blg 129, Section 19(4).
51 SC Administrative Order No. 3 dated January 19, 1983 states in
part:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, and Section 4 of the
Executive Order issued by the President of the Philippines on January 17, 1983,
declaring the reorganization of the Judiciary, the territorial jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts in the National Capital Judicial Region are hereby defined
as follows:
xxxx
5. Branches CXXXII to CL, inclusive, with seats at Makatiover the municipalities of
Las Pias, Makati, Muntinlupa and Paraaque. x x x
308
52
The case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. involved a marriage
between a foreigner and his Filipino wife, which marriage
was subsequently dissolved through a divorce obtained
abroad by the latter. Claiming that the divorce was not
valid under Philippine law, the alien spouse alleged that
his interest in the properties from their conjugal
partnership should be protected. The Court, however,
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. Thus:
The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony
by a competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic
relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The
marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A
husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the
law. When the law provides, in the nature of a penalty, that the guilty
party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is still
absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage.
_______________
309
This principle
55
was thereafter applied in Pilapil v.
IbaySomera where the Court recognized the validity of a
divorce obtained abroad. In the said case, it was held that
the alien spouse is not a proper party in filing the adultery
suit against his Filipino wife. The Court stated that the
severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating
the former spouses from each other, hence the actuations
56
of
one would not affect or cast obloquy on the 57
other.
Likewise, in Quita v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated
that where a Filipino is divorced by his 58naturalized foreign
spouse, the ruling in Van Dorn applies. Although decided
on December 22, 1998, the divorce in the said case was
obtained in 1954 when the Civil Code provisions were still
in effect.
The significance of the Van Dorn case to the
development of limited recognition of divorce in the
Philippines cannot be
_______________
54 Id., at p. 144.
55 Supra note 31.
56 Id., at p. 664.
57 G.R. No. 124862, December 22, 1998, 300 SCRA 406.
58 Id., at p. 414 See also Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380,
October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 114, 121.
310
62
In the recent case of Republic v. Orbecido III, the
62
In the recent case of Republic v. Orbecido III, the
historical background and legislative intent behind
paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code were discussed,
to wit:
_______________
311
Legislative Intent
_______________
312
_______________
65 ART. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.
66 ART. 17. x x x Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy
and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country.
67 Supra note 14 at p. 144.
68 G.R. No. L72873, May 28, 1987, 150 SCRA 259.
313
_______________
314
_______________
315
_______________
316
the coowners
77
shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary
is proven.
Meanwhile, if respondent fails to prove the validity of
both the divorce and the marriage, the applicable provision
would be Article 148 of the Family Code which has filled
the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil Code by expressly
regulating the property relations of couples living together
78
as husband and wife but are79incapacitated to marry. In
Saguid v. Court of Appeals, we held that even if the
cohabitation or the acquisition of property occurred 80before
the Family Code took effect, Article 148 governs. The
Court described the property regime under this provision
as follows:
_______________
77 Valdes v. RTC, Br. 102, Quezon City, 328 Phil. 1289, 1297 260 SCRA
221, 228 (1996).
78 Francisco v. Master Iron Works & Construction Corporation, G.R. No.
151967, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 494, 506.
79 G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 678.
80 Id., at p. 686.
317
evidence
81
and not upon the weakness of the opponents defense. x x
x
o0o
_______________
318
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.