CONSOLIDATED CASE OF EDGAR SAN LUIS vs.

FELICIDAD SAN LUIS and RODOLFO

SAN LUIS vs. FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS
G.R.s No. 133743 and No. 134029; February 6, 2007
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J

Doctrine:

The petition for letters of administration of the estate of deceased shall be filed in the
Regional Trial Court of the province "in which he resides at the time of his death." This refers to
physical residence and not to legal residence or domicile. (Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules
of Court)

Facts:

The instant consoliated case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo T. San Luis
(Felicisimo), the former governor of the Province of Laguna. During his lifetime, Felicisimo
contracted three marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit where he had 6 children
(Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita and Manuel). 5 years after death of Virginia (1 st wife),
Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin. However Merry Lee (2 nd wife) an American citizen, filed a
Complaint for Divorce before the United States of America (U.S.A.), which issued a Decree
Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody. Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad
San Luis (3rd wife and herein respondent) in California, U.S.A to whom he had lived up to his
death.

Respondent (3rd wife) filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City and prayed that the conjugal partnership assets be liquidated and that letters
of administration be issued to her. Petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, as joined by Linda (son and
daughter from 1st marriage) filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and failure
to state a cause of action. Edgar (son from the first marriage) also filed a separate motion to
dismiss. The trial court denied all motion to dismiss. Motion for reconsideration was filed but was
likewise denied. Petitioners filed motion for inhibition against RTC judge due to alleged conflict of
interest. The motion for inhibition was granted. The case was re-raffled to another branch. Under
the new RTC branch where the case was re-raffled, the trial court dismissed the petition for letters
of administration and ruled in favor of petitioner by ruling that petition should have been filed in
Sta. Cruz, Laguna (domicile of late San Luis) and not in Makati City (residence); and that marriage
to respondent was bigamous, hence, she has no capacity to file the petition for letters of
administration.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial Court and upheld both the validity of
venue and marriage of respondent. Hence, this petition.

Issues:
1. Whether or not venue was properly laid
2. Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of
administration.
Ruling:

1. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the
petition for letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional
Trial Court of the province "in which he resides at the time of his death." The term "place of
residence" of the decedent, for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate,
Page 1 of 2
 refers to the personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode of
a person as distinguished from legal residence or domicile. Under Rule 73, residence rather
than domicile is the significant factor. Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it
is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. In other words,
"resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal,
actual or physical habitation of a person. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual
stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal
residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as
an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and
also an intention to make it one’s domicile. 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 deathFrom
the foregoing, we find that Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for purposes of
fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate.

2. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that as to issue of respondent Felicidad has legal
personality to file the petition for letters of administration because Filipino who is divorced
by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry under the Civil Code even when Felicidad’s
marriage to Felicisimo was solemnized on June 20, 1974, or before the Family Code took
effect on August 3, 1988 because of the Vandorn doctrine. Therefore, under Article 130 of
the Family Code, the petitioner as the surviving spouse can institute the judicial proceeding
for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.

The Supreme Court denied the petition.

Page 2 of 2