Rodolfo San Luis vs Felicidad Sagalongos-San Luis with the legal personality to file the present petition as Felicisimo’s

surviving spouse. However, the records show that there is insufficient

514 SCRA 294 – Civil Law – Family Code – Retroactive Effect of Article 26
of the Family Code
During his lifetime, Felicisimo San Luis (Rodolfo San Luis’s 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 Felicisimo’s conjugal partnership assets and the
settlement of Felicisimo’s 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 Felicidad’s 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 Felicisimo’s estate.
HELD: The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which
absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would have vested Felicidad
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 Felicidad’s 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.