EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner vs. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.

(2007)
RODOLFO SAN LUIS, Petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.

Facts:

Felicimo San Luis, former governor of Laguna contracted three marriages. The first marriage bore 6
children, among which are Edgar and Rodolfo.

Felicidad filed a Petition for Letters of Rodolfo filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds
Administration before the RTC of Makati alleging: of:
1. She is the widow 1. Improper venue and

2. That at the time of death of decedent he 2. failure to state a cause of action

was residing at Alabang

TC: ruled that respondent possessed the legal standing to file the action and venue was properly laid.

CA: Respondent appealed and then CA REVERSED the orders of the trial court based on Sec. 1 Rule 73 of
the RoC, the term place of residence for the purpose of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate
refers to the personal, actual or physical habitation or actual residence or place of abode of a person as
distinguished from legal residence. It noted that although Felicisimo discharged functions as governor in
Laguna he actually resided in Alabang.

Issues:

1) Whether venue was properly laid

2) Whether respondent has legal capacity to file the letters for administration

Ruling:

1. YES. Under Sec.1 R73, the petition for letters of administration of the estate should be filed in the RTC
of the province in which he resides at the time of his death.

In Garcia v. Fule the court laid the doctrinal rule for determining residence as distinguished from
domicile of the decedent for the purpose of fixing venue of the settlement of estate.

Residence should be viewed in its popular sense.

Residence is his personal, actual or physical habitation or actual residence or place of abode of a person
as which may not be his legal residence/domicile provided he resides with continuity and consistency. It
signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay.

Residence requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place while Domicile requires bodily
presence in that place and intention to make it ones domicile.

2. YES. S6, R78 of the RoC, states that letters of administration may be granted to the surviving spouse of
the decedent. However, Section 2, Rule 79 thereof also provides in part:
 SEC. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. A petition for letters of administration
must be filed by an interested person and must show, as far as known to the petitioner: x x x.

An interested person has been defined as one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir,
or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest must be material and direct,
and not merely indirect or contingent.

Respondent would qualify as an interested person who has a direct interest in the estate of Felicisimo by
virtue of their cohabitation, the existence of which was not denied by petitioners.

1) She may be considered as part-owner under Art. 144 of the Civil Code OR
2) Art. 148 of the FC property relations of couples living together as husband and wife but are
incapacitated to marry.

Amelia Garcia Quiazon, Jenneth and Jennifer Quiazon vs. Ma. Lourdes Belen (2013)

Facts:

Elise represented by her mother, Lourdes filed a petition for Letters of Administration before RTC Las
Pias.

Elise claims in another special proceeding,

Amelia
1. that she is the natural child of Eliseo (birth 1. filed a motion to dismiss stating that the
cert. signed by Eliseo) venue of the petition was improperly laid.

2. impugned the validity of Eliseo and Amelias 2. Attached Death cert

marriage by claiming that it was bigamous
3. Eliseo was a resident of Tarlac not of Las
for having been contracted during the
Pias at the time of his death. Pursuant to
subsistence of the latters marriage with
Rule 73
Flipito.
4. No factual and legal basis for Elise to be
appointed administratix of Eliseos estate

RTC: directed the issuance of letters of administration to Elise upon posting the necessary bond and
ruled that venue was properly laid in Las Pias

CA: Affirmed RTCs decision.

1. Elise was able to prove that Eliseo and Lourdes lived together as husband and wife by
establishing a common residence at Las Pias from 1975 to 1992.

2. Declared marriage between Eliseo and Amelias marriage void ab initio

3. The venue of the settlement of the estate is upheld the decision that decedent was a resident of
Las Pias.

Issues:

1. Whether Eliseo was a resident of Las Pias

 2. Whether Amelias married to Eliseo is bigamous and therefore void

3. Whether Elise has any interest in the petition for letters of administration.

Ruling:

1. Under S1 R73, the petition for letters of administration of the estate of a decedent should be
filed in the RTC of the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death.

Resides connotes ex vi termini actual residence as distinguished from legal

residence/domicile. Resides is elastic and should be interpreted in the purpose of the statute
in which it is employed.

In the application of venue statutes and rules is of such nature residence rather than
domicile is the significant factor.

Venue for ordinary civil actions and for special proceedings have one and the same meaning. Residence,
in the context of venue provisions means nothing more than a persons actual residence or place of
abode provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.

Eliseo filed an action for judicial partition of properties against Amelia before RTC Quezon on the ground
that their marriage is void for being bigamous.

2. Any interested party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally even beyond the
lifetime of parties to the marriage.

Civil Code was in effect during Amelia and Eliseos marriage. Court applied Nial v. Bayadog,
where the Court allowed petitioners to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of their
fathers marriage to respondent after the death their father.

Elise may impugn the existence of such marriage as a CH, has a cause of action for the
declaration of nullity of marriage and the death of either one does not extinguish one.

Void marriages can be questioned after death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only
during the lifetime of parties and not after death.

3. Elise has an interest as provided in S6 R 78 which lays down the preferred persons who are
entitled to the issuance of letters of administration. to the surviving husband or wife or
next of kin or both in the discretion of the court.

and S2 R 79 provides that a petition for letter of administration must be filed by an

interested person in estate proceedings. An interested person is one who be benefited in
the estate like an heir or one who has a claim against the estate (creditor).

Next of kin those whose relationship with the decedent is such that they are entitled to
share in the estate as distributes.

Elise, as a CH who stands to be benefited by the distribution if Eliseos estate is deemed to be an

interested party.