San Luis v. San Luis

G.R. No.
133743 February 6, 2007
EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner,

vs.
FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.
FACTS: Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo), who was the former governor of the Province of
Laguna. During his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage was with
Virginia Sulit out of which were born six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita
and Manuel. Virginia predeceased Felicisimo.
Five years later, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias.
However, , Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a Complaint for Divorce which was granted. 6
Then Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos, He had no
children with respondent but lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his
death
Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the
settlement of Felicisimo’s estate.
Respondent alleged that she is the widow of Felicisimo; that the decedent’s surviving heirs are
respondent as legal spouse, his six children by his first marriage, and son by his second marriage;
that the decedent left real properties, both conjugal and exclusive, valued at ₱30,304,178.00 more
or less; that the decedent does not have any unpaid debts. Respondent prayed that the conjugal
partnership assets be liquidated and that letters of administration be issued to her.
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.
ISSUE: Whether respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters
of administration
RULING: Yes, Felicidad has the legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of
administration may arise from her status that as a surviving wife of Felicisimo or his co-owner
under the Art. 144 of the Civil code.
Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry the respondent in 1974, the latter
has the legal personality to file the subject petition for letters of administration, as he may be
considered the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards that were acquired through their joint efforts
during their cohabitation.
Tumlos vs Fernandez
GR No. 137650, April 12, 2000
FACTS: Spouses Fernandez were involved in an action for ejectment filed against the
Tumloses. Spouses Fernandez alleged that they are the absolute owners of an apartment
building that through their tolerance they allowed the Tumlos’ to occupy the apartment for the last
7 years without payment of any rent.
It was agreed that Guillerma Tumlos will pay 1,600 a month while the other defendants promised
to pay 1,000 a month which was not complied with. Demand was made several times for the
defendants to vacate the premises as they are in need of the property for the construction of a
new building.
It was alleged that Mario and Guillerma had an amorous relationship and that they acquired the
property in question. It was likewise alleged that they lived together in the said apartment building
with their children for about 10 years and that Guillerma administered the property by collecting
rentals from the lessees until she discovered that Mario deceived her as to the status of their
marriage.
ISSUE: whether or not Guillerma is a co-owner of the said apartment under Article 148.
HELD: No. Clearly, there is no basis for petitioners’ claim of co-ownership. The property in
question belongs to the conjugal partnership of respondents.
The claim was not satisfactorily proven by Guillerma since there were no other evidence
presented to validate it except for the said affidavit. Even if the allegations of having cohabited
with Mario and that she bore him two children were true, the claim of co-ownership still cannot be
accepted. Mario is validly married with Lourdes hence Guillerma and Mario are not capacitated
to marry each other. The property relation governing their supposed cohabitation is under Article
148 of the Family Code. Actual contribution is required by the said provision in contrast to Art
147 which states that efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are
regarded as contributions to the acquisitions of common property by one who has no salary,
income, work or industry. Such is not included in Art 148. If actual contribution is not proven then
there can be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares.

San Luis v. San Luis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Luis v. San Luis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Luis v. San Luis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

133743 February 6, 2007

EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner,

You might also like