San Luis vs.

San Luis
G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029, 6 February 2007

FACTS: 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 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.