SAN LUIS VS SAN LUIS

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J:
Nature of the action: Settlement of estate of Felicisimo San Luis ( former Governor of
Laguna)
Parties: Felicisimo's first wife Virginia Sulit with 6 children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila,
Edgar, Linda, Ermilita and Manuel (all surnamed San Luis); 2 nd wife Merry Lee Corwin
with a son Tobias; 3rd wife (Respondent) Felicidad San Luis with no child.
Doctrine:
1.) the term place of residence of the decedent, for purposes 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 or
domicile.
2.) Residence and Domicile are synonymous in Election Cases, however, it is not
applicable. In ROC under the definition of residence for purposes of fixing the venue.
Facts:
Felicisimo a former Governor of Laguna, during his lifetime contracted 3
marriages. He has 6 children with his first wife, herein petitioners Rodolfo and Edgar.
His first wife predeceased him.
After 5 years, he contracted his 2nd marriage with his 2nd wife to whom he has a
son. However, his marriege to his 2nd wife failed, and the latter obtained a decree of
absoulute divorced in the state of Hawaii.
Subsequently, he contracted another marriage with his 3 rd wife to whom he has no
child, but he lived with her for 18 years from the time of his marriage up to his death.
After his death, the 3rd wife filed a petition for letters of administration before the
RTC Makati. [ at the time Alabang, Muntinlupa is only a municipality, and the branches
of the RTC which had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa were then seated in
Makati City as per SC Administrative Circular no. 3].
The respondent alleged in her petition that Felicisimo at the time of his death was
residing in Alabang, evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale showing that the deceased
purchase the property in Alabang, biling statements from hospitals indicating the
decedent's address in Alabang, proof of membership in Alabang Village Association.
Petitioner Rodolfo, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of, among others,
improper venue. Because the place of residence of the decedent at the time of his death
was the Province of Laguna.
However, petitioner argued that while the decedent exercising his public office to
the province of Laguna, he regularly went home to their house in Alabang.
The trial court dismissed the petition for letters of administration because at the
time of his death he was the duly elected Governor and a resident of Laguna.

The respondent moved for reconsideration but denied.

The respondent appealed to the CA, which reversed and set aside the decision of
the trial court.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
WON the venue was properly laid.
Held:
Yes.
Because the petition for letters of administration of the estate should be filed in
the RTC of the province in which the decedent resides at the time of his death..
Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the term place of residence of the
decedent, for purposes 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 or domicile. It noted 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.
AGTARAP VS AGTARAP
Ponente: Nachura, J:
Nature: Judicial Settlement of Estate
Parties: DECEDENT-- Joaquin Agtarap; DECEDENT'S 1ST WIFE-- Lucia Garcia (with
3 children: Jesus, Milagros and Jose); DECEDENT'S 2ND WIFE-- Caridad Garcia (with
3 children Eduardo, Sebastian and Mercedes).
Doctrine:
1.) Probate Courts Jurisdiction. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court,
either as a probate or an intesta court, relates only to matters having to do with the
probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, BUT does not
extend to the determination of ownership that arise during the proceedings.
Ratio: such court is merely exercises special and limited jurisdiction.
EXCEPTIONS: However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified by
expediency and convenience.
First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate
proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of
property without prejudice to the final determination of ownership in a separate action.

Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the question is one of
collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is
competent to resolve issues on ownership. Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters
incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the
determination of the status of each heir and whether the property in the inventory is
conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse.
2.) The jurisdictions of the probate court extends to matters incidental or collateral to the
settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the status of each
heirs and whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of the
deceased spouse.
Facts:
Joaquin at the time of his death, left two parcels of land in Pasay City.
Eduardo the decedent's child in his 2 nd marriage filed a petition for the
appointment of letters of administration, Joseph the grandson opposes the petition of
Eduardo as administrator on the grounds that 1.) he is not physically and mentally fit to
do so; 2.) his interest in the lots is minimal; and 3.) he does not possess a capacity to
earn.
However, RTC appointed Eduardo as the regular administrator. Consequently,
RTC issued him letters of administration.
After th parties were given the opportunity to be heard and to submit their
respective proposed project of partition, the RTC issued an order of partition.
Eduardo, Sebastian and oppositors Joseph and Teresa filed a motion for
reconsideration, the RTC denied the MR of Eduardo and Sebastian, then granted the MR
of Joseph and Teresa.
Eduardo and Sebastian appealed the decision to the CA.
Aggrieved from the decision of the CA, Eduardo and Sebastian, thus filed this
petition.
Issue:
WON the probate court has no power to determine the ownership of the property
which is the subject of the settlement of estate, thus, should be resolved in an
appropriate action.
Held:
No.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate or an
intestate court, relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or
settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of

questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this
rule is that such court merely exercises special and limited jurisdiction. As held in
several cases, a probate court or one in charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or
intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the
estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any right of
inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate.
All that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether or not
they should be included in the inventory of properties to be administered by the
administrator. If there is no dispute, there poses no problem, but if there is, then the
parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action
before a court exercising general jurisdiction for a final determination of the conflicting
claims of title.
However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified by expediency and
convenience.
First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate
proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of
property without prejudice to the final determination of ownership in a separate action.
Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the question is one of
collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is
competent to resolve issues on ownership. Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters
incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the
determination of the status of each heir and whether the property in the inventory is
conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse.
We hold that the general rule does not apply to the instant case considering that the
parties are all heirs of Joaquin and that no rights of third parties will be impaired by the
resolution of the ownership issue. More importantly, the determination of whether the
subject properties are conjugal is but collateral to the probate courts jurisdiction to settle
the estate of Joaquin.
SILVERIO VS SILVERIO
Ponente: Villaram, Jr, J.:
Nature: Declaration of the sales and derivative titles over properties subject of intestate
proceedings as null and void.
Parties: Ricardo C. Silverio Sr (husband); Edmundo, Edgardo, Ricardo and Ligaya
(children)
Doctrine:

1.) The probate court having jurisdiction over the properties under administration has the
authority not only to approve and dispostion or conveyance, but also to annul an
unauthorized sale by the prospective heirs or administrator.
2.) It is the probate court that has the power to authorize and/or approve the sale. (Sec. 4
and 7, Rule 89), hence, it is said court that can declare it null and void for as long the
proceedings had not been closed or terminated.
Facts:
Beatriz Silverio died intestate, she was survived by his husband, Ricardo Silverio
Sr, and her 5 children.
When Silverio Jr. was still the administrator of the estate of his mother, he applied
for the sale of certain properties belonging to the estate. He succeeded then executed a
Deed of Absolute sale in favor of Citrine Holdings and Monica Ocampor. (properties in
Forbes Park, Makati).
Silverio Sr. filed an omnibus motion to declare as null and void the said Deed
excuted by Silverio Jr.
The RTC ruled in favor of Silverio Sr.
However, Silverio Jr filed a petition for certiorari to the CA.
The CA affirmed the appointment of Silverio Sr. as administrator and the order
declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale as null and void was reversed and set aside.
Issue:
WON the probate court can validly annul the sales of a property subject to
intestate proceeding.
Held:
Yes.
The probate court having jurisdiction over the properties under administration has
the authority not only to approve and dispostion or conveyance, but also to annul an
unauthorized sale by the prospective heirs or administrator.
It is the probate court that has the power to authorize and/or approve the sale.
(Sec. 4 and 7, Rule 89), hence, it is said court that can declare it null and void for as long
the proceedings had not been closed or terminated.

SUNTAY III VS COJUANCO-SUNTAY

Ponente: Perez, J.:
Nature: Petition of the issuance of letters of administration
Parties: Isabel Coujuanco-Suntay (respondent; Legitimate Grandchildren); Emilio
Suntay III (petitioner; Illegitimate Grandchildren).
Doctrine:
1.) The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator over the
estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator interest in the estate.
Rationale:
those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration
of the estate, or in the alternative, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or
mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the
estate correctly.
In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of preference, the person to be
appointed administrator of the decedent's estate must demonstrate not only an interest in
the estate, but an interest therein greater than any other candidate.
Facts:
Cristina Aguinaldo Suntay died intestate survived by her spouse and 5 legitimate
grandchildren including respondent Isabel, and 2 illegitimate grandchildren, including
petitioner Emilio III.
Isabel filed before the RTC a petition for the issuance of letters of administration
over Cristina's estate.
However, Federico opposed the petition.
Federico filed a motion to dismiss Isabel's petition for letters of administration on
the ground that Isabel had no right of representation to the estate of Cristina, she being
an illegitimate grandchild, however, this allegation was settled in the prevoious case
which rendered that Isabel and her siblings were Legitimate grandchild from their
legitimate son.
Then Federico nominated Emilio III to administer the decedent's estate.
The trial court rendered a decision appointing Emilio III as administrator.
On appeal the CA reversed and set aside the decision of RTC, revoked the letters
of administration issued to Emilio III and appointed respondent as administrator
On appeal by certiorari the court included Emilio III as co-administrator, however,
Isabel opposed it.
Issue:
Who, as between Emilio III and Isabel, is better qualified to act as administrator
of the decedent's estate.

Held:
Isabel.
The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator over the
estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator interest in the estate.
Rationale:
those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration
of the estate, or in the alternative, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or
mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the
estate correctly.
In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of preference, the person to be
appointed administrator of the decedent's estate must demonstrate not only an interest in
the estate, but an interest therein greater than any other candidate.
Furthermore, Emilio failed to performed the duties of being administrator for not
including some of the heirs and properties in the inventory.