8/6/2019 29 Luis v Luis

1/1

San Luis v. San Luis

Bigamy Void Marriage

Facts: During his lifetime, Felicisimo (Rodolfos dad) contracted three marriages. His first marriagewas 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 Divorcebefore the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, which issued a Decree Granting AbsoluteDivorce and Awarding Child Custody on December 14, 1973. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo marriedFelicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos. He had no children with respondent but lived with herfor 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on December 18, 1992. Upon death of hisdad Rodolfo 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 theRegional Trial Court of Makati City. Rodolfo claimed that respondent has no legal personality to file thepetition because she was only a mistress of Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death, wasstill legally married to Merry Lee. Felicidad presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by theFamily Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii to prove that the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Leehad already been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the legal capacity to marry her byvirtue 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 tovalidate respondents bigamous marriage with Felicisimo because this would impair vested rights inderogation of Article 256.

ISSUE: Whether or not Felicidads marriage to Felicisimo is bigamous.

HELD: The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which absolutely allowed Felicisimo toremarry, would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present petition asFelicisimos surviving spouse. However, the records show that there is insufficient evidence to provethe validity of the divorce obtained by Merry Lee as well as the marriage of respondent and Felicisimounder the laws of the U.S.A. In Garcia v. Recio, the Court laid down the specific guidelines for pleadingand proving foreign law and divorce judgments. It held that presentation solely of the divorce decree isinsufficient and that proof of its authenticity and due execution must be presented. Under Sections 24and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreigncountry by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legalcustody 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 Philippineforeign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated bythe seal of his office.

With regard to respondents marriage to Felicisimo allegedly solemnized in California, U.S.A., shesubmitted 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 allegedand proved.

The case should be remanded to the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decreeobtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo