San Luis vs. San Luis G.R.

number 13 37 43 : February 6, 2007 WHERE: RTC Makati WHY: San Luis' children contested 3rd marriage as bigamous. WHAT: Article 256, Family Code; Article 144, Civil Code provides for conjugal partnership under unmarried partne rs. & Article 148, Family Code. Short Summary: Former Laguna governor had 1st spouse who predeceased him, then m arried again to an American citizen who divorced him, then remarried again. He d ied with his 3rd wife but his 2nd wife and the children in the 1st marriage cont ested the standing of the 3rd wife, claiming that the said marriage was bigamous since the 2nd marriage was still subsisting under Republic of the Philippines l aw because the Family Code cannot be applied retroactively. Court held that even when the family code not applied retroactively, Philippine jurisprudence suffic iently provides the validity of the 3rd marriage, thus recognizing divorce obtai ned by an alien spouse against the Filipino spouse. However, as the 3rd marriage was not sufficiently proved, the case was remanded in order for the 3rd spouse to present further evidence on this. FACTS: 1. Former Laguna governor had 1st spouse who predeceased him, then married again to an American citizen who divorced him, then remarried again. 2. He died with his 3rd wife but his 2nd wife and the children in the 1st marria ge contested the standing of the 3rd wife, claiming that marriage was bigamous s ince the 2nd marriage was still subsisting under RPetitioner law. 3. Felicidad f iled petition for DISSOLUTION OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP ASSETS AND SETTLEMENT OF F ELICISIMO'S ESTATE. 3.Children contested Felicidad: a. Petition should have filed petition in Laguna (domicile) and not in Makati (d eceased's residence) b. No legal personality to sue: Felicidad is only a mistress - marriage to Merry Lee was still valid. 4. Felicidad: a. Proved Felicisimo's residence. b. Decree of absolute divorce by Hawaii. ISSUE: Whether 3rd marriage is bigamous. RULING: 1. Cases Ps relied upon were petition cases. Distinction between "residence" for purposes of election laws and "residence" fo r purposes of fixing the venue of actions. 2. Felicidad has capacity to sues. 3. Case was on remand.