San Luis v San Luis

G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007

FACTS:
During his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage
was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were born six children,
namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita and Manuel. On August 11, 1963,
Virginia predeceased Felicisimo.
Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with
whom he had a son, Tobias. However, on October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an
American citizen, filed a Complaint for Divorce before the Family Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States of America (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, before Rev. Fr.
William Meyer, Minister of the United Presbyterian at Wilshire Boulevard, 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 Felicisimos estate. On December 17, 1993, she
filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court
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. Rodolfo claimed that the
petition for letters of administration should have been filed in the Province of
Laguna because this was Felicisimos place of residence prior to his death. 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.
ISSUES:
Whether respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of
administration.
RULING:
Yes. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v.
Romillo, Jr. The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner. The Court held therein that a divorce decree validly obtained
by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino
spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. As such, the Van Dorn
case is sufficient basis in resolving a situation where a divorce is validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse. With the enactment of the Family Code
and paragraph 2, Article 26 thereof, our lawmakers codified the law already
established through judicial precedent.

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 Felicisimos 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 respondents 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. As stated
in Garcia, however, the Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as
they must be alleged and proved.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.
Republic of the Philippines vs. CA and Castro
G.R. No. 103047 September 12, 1994
Facts:
On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a
civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay
City. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge
of Castros parents. Defendant Cardenas personally attended to theprocessing
of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage, including the
procurement of the marriage license. In fact, the marriage contract itself
states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the
contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila. The couple did not
immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was
unknown to Castros parents. Thus, it was only in March 1971, when Castro
discovered she was pregnant, that the couple decided to live together.
However, their cohabitation lasted only for four (4) months. Thereafter,
the couple parted ways. On October 19, 1971,Castro gave birth. The baby was
adopted by Castros brother, with the consent of Cardenas.
Issue:
Whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence
presented by private respondent are sufficient to establish that no marriage
license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the
marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas
Ruling: The law provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a
marriage license first issued by a local registrar. Being one of the essential
requisites of a valid marriage, absence to the parties is not adequate to
prove its nonissuance. The above rule authorized the custodian of documents to certify that
despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his office or

that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not being found in a registrar.
As custodians of public documents, civil
registrars are public officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a
register book where they are required to enter allapplications for marriage
license, including the names of the applicants, the date the marriage license
was issued and such other relevant data. The certification of due search and
inability to find issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys probative value, he
being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to
the issuance of a marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of
suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a
certificate of due search and inability to find sufficiently proved that his office
did not issue marriage license no. 1396182 to the contracting parties. There
being no marriage license, the marriage of Angelina and Edwin is void ab initio