Rodolfo San Luis vs Felicidad Sagalongos-San Luis

514 SCRA 294 Civil Law Family Code Retroactive Effect of Article 26 of the Family
Code
During his lifetime, Felicisimo San Luis (Rodolfo San Luiss dad) contracted three
marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were
born six children. 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, which
issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody on December 14,
1973. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed
Sagalongos. He had no children with Felicidad but lived with her for 18 years from the time
of their marriage up to his death on December 18, 1992. Upon death of his dad, Rodolfo
sought the dissolution of their Felicisimos conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of
Felicisimos estate. On December 17, 1993, Felicidad filed a petition for letters of
administration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Rodolfo claimed that
Felicidad 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.
Felicidad presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the Family Court of the First
Circuit, State of Hawaii to prove that the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already
been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the legal capacity to marry her by
virtue of paragraph 2 Article 26 of the Family Code.
Rodolfo asserted that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be given
retroactive effect to validate Felicidads bigamous marriage with Felicisimo because this
would impair vested rights in derogation of Article 256.
ISSUE: Whether or not Felicidad may file for letters of administration over Felicisimos
estate.
HELD: 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 Felicidad and Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A. In Garcia v. Recio, the
Court laid down the specific guidelines for pleading and proving foreign law and divorce
judgments. It held that presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient and that proof
of its authenticity and due execution must be presented. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule

132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country
by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal
custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a)
accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b)
authenticated by the seal of his office.
With regard to Felicidads 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.
The 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.