Alabang Village, Alabang, Metro Manila which they bought

San Luis vs San Luis

sometime in 1982. Further, she presented the decree of

G.R. No. 133743

February 6, 2007

absolute divorce issued by the Family Court of the First

Circuit, State of Hawaii to prove that the marriage of

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already been dissolved. Thus,

she claimed that Felicisimo had the legal capacity to marry

Topic:

her by virtue of paragraph 2,

13

Article 26 of the Family

Code and the doctrine laid down in Van Dorn v. Romillo,

This case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo

Jr. 14

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

Thereafter, Linda, Rodolfo and herein petitioner Edgar San

Luis, separately filed MR-denied

Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were born six
children, namely: Rodolfo (P), Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita
and Manuel. Virginia predeceased Felicisimo. 2

nd

M- 1 son;

Mila filed a motion for inhibition-granted

Merry Lee wife, American citizen and filed dicorce.

trial court required the parties to submit their respective

3ed-R, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad San Luis

capacity of respondent to file the petition

position papers on the twin issues of venue and legal

(1974), then surnamed Sagalongos, before Rev. Fr. William

Meyer, Minister of the United Presbyterian at Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 7 He had no
children with respondent but lived with her for 18 years
from the time of their marriage up to his death on December
18, 1992.

trial

court

dismissed

the

petition

for

letters

of

administration. It held that, at the time of his death,

Felicisimo was the duly elected governor and a resident of
the Province of Laguna. Hence, should be Laguna.
R MR and motion for inhibition-denied; CA Reversed.

R sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets

and the settlement of Felicisimos estate. She filed a petition
for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court

The appellante court ruled that under Section 1, Rule 73 of

the Rules of Court, the term "place of residence" of the

of Makati City,

decedent, for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement

p, one of the children of Felicisimo by his first marriage,

habitation, or actual residence or place of abode of a person

of his estate, refers to the personal, actual or physical

filed a motion to dismiss 9 on the grounds of improper

venue and failure to state a cause of action. Rodolfo claimed
that the petition for letters of administration should have
been filed in the Province of Laguna because this was
Felicisimos place of residence prior to his death. He further
claimed that respondent 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.

filed on March 5, 1994 her opposition

documentary

that although Felicisimo discharged his functions as

governor in Laguna, he actually resided in Alabang,
Muntinlupa. Thus, the petition for letters of administration
was properly filed in Makati City.
Ps MR;denied.
In the instant consolidated petitions, Edgar and Rodolfo
insist that the venue of the subject petition for letters of

Unaware of the denial of the motions to dismiss, respondent

submitted

as distinguished from legal residence or domicile. It noted

evidence

12

showing

thereto. She
that

while

Felicisimo exercised the powers of his public office in

Laguna, he regularly went home to their house in New

administration was improperly laid because at the time of

his death, Felicisimo was a resident of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
"residence" is synonymous with "domicile" which denotes a
fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one
intends to return. They claim that a person can only have
one domicile at any given time. Since Felicisimo never

changed

his

domicile,

the

petition

for

letters

of

administration should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

Nuval and Romualdez are inapplicable to the instant case

because they involve election cases. Needless to say, there is
a distinction between "residence" for purposes of election

The issues for resolution: (1) whether venue was properly

laws and "residence" for purposes of fixing the venue of

laid, and (2) whether respondent has legal capacity to file

actions. In election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are

the subject petition for letters of administration (civil)

treated as synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent

residence to which when absent, one has the intention of

Decision: denied!

returning. 42 However, for purposes of fixing venue under the

Under Section 1, 39 Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the

petition for letters of administration of the estate of
Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the
province "in which he resides at the time of his death." In
the case of Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals,

40

we laid down

the doctrinal rule for determining the residence as

contradistinguished from domicile of the decedent for
purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate:
[T]he term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual
residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or
domicile." This term "resides," like the terms "residing" and
"residence," is elastic and should be interpreted in the light
of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is
employed. In the application of venue statutes and rules
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such
nature residence rather than domicile is the significant
factor. Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still
it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the
technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the
terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in
statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and
convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other
words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its
popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical
habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It
signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay
thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely
residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or
domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an
inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily
presence in that place and also an intention to make it ones
domicile. No particular length of time of residence is
required though; however, the residence must be more than
temporary. 41 (Emphasis supplied)
It is incorrect for petitioners to argue that "residence," for
purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of the estate
of Felicisimo, is synonymous with "domicile." The rulings in

Rules of Court, the "residence" of a person is his personal,

actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of
abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or
domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and
consistency. 43 Hence, it is possible that a person may have
his residence in one place and domicile in another.
In the instant case, while petitioners established that
Felicisimo was domiciled in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent
proved that he also maintained a residence in Alabang,
Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his death.
Respondent submitted in evidence the Deed of Absolute
Sale 44 dated January 5, 1983 showing that the deceased
purchased the aforesaid property. She also presented billing
statements 45 from the Philippine Heart Center and Chinese
General Hospital for the period August to December 1992
indicating the address of Felicisimo at "100 San Juanico,
Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa." Respondent also presented
proof of membership of the deceased in the Ayala Alabang
Village Association 46 and Ayala Country Club, Inc., 47 letterenvelopes 48 from 1988 to 1990 sent by the deceaseds
children to him at his Alabang address, and the deceaseds
calling cards 49 stating that his home/city address is at "100
San Juanico, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa" while his
office/provincial address is in "Provincial Capitol, Sta. Cruz,
Laguna."
From the foregoing, we find that Felicisimo was a resident of
Alabang, Muntinlupa for purposes of fixing the venue of the
settlement of his estate. Consequently, the subject petition
for letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional
Trial

Court 50 which

has

territorial

jurisdiction

over

Alabang, Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on

December 17, 1993. At that time, Muntinlupa was still a
municipality and the branches of the Regional Trial Court
of the National Capital Judicial Region which had
territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa were then seated in
Makati City as per Supreme Court Administrative Order

No. 3. 51 Thus, the subject petition was validly filed before

the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.