Uriarte vs CFI

FACTS:
The deceased in this case is a non-resident alien who died leaving several properties in Philippines.
Petitioner, claiming to be an acknowledged natural child and the sole heir, filed a petition for intestate settlement
of estate of the deceased at the CFI Negros.
However, said petition was opposed by the alleged nephews of the deceased. They stated that the deceased left
a will. They filed a settlement of estate in the court of Manila, on the basis of the alleged will of the deceased.
Petitioner filed an opposition in the settlement of estate in the court of Manila stating that the Negros Court has
already acquired original jurisdiction over the case. But the opposition of petitioner was dismissed together with
the intestate settlement in the CFI of Negros.
ISSUE:
Whether the intestate settlement in Negros should be dismissed.
HELD:
The Court held that the dismissal of the intestate proceeding in Negros court is proper.
Under the Rules on the settlement of estate of the deceased person, testate proceedings enjoy priority over
intestate proceedings. Therefore, in case intestate settlement was filed prior to the finding of the will of the
deceased, then the intestate proceedings shall be dismissed to give priority to the testate proceeding.

Cuenco vs. CA
FACTS:

The deceased in this case died in Manila. He was survived by his widow and two minor sons and children of the
first marriage. Lourdes, one of the children from the first marriage, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration
with the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cebu, alleging that the deceased died intestate in Manila but a resident of
Cebu with properties in Cebu and Quezon City.
The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, petitioner, the second wife of the deceased, filed a petition with CFI Rizal
for the probate of the last will and testament, where she was named executrix. Petitioner also filed an opposition
and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but this court held in abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI Quezon
shall have acted on the probate proceedings.
Lourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon, on ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or improper
venue, considering that CFI Cebu already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The opposition and
motion to dismiss were denied. Upon appeal CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a writ of prohibition to CFI
Quezon.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CFI Quezon acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance and
assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the probate proceedings in pursuance to CFI Cebu's order expressly
consenting in deference to the precedence of probate over intestate proceedings
HELD:
The rules on venue and jurisdiction, under Rule 73, provides that the court first taking cognizance of the
settlement of the estate of a decent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
However, upon learning that a petition for probate of the decedent's last will has been presented in another court
where the decedent obviously had his conjugal domicile and resided with his surviving widow and their minor
children, and that the allegation of the intestate petition before it stating that the decedent died intestate may be
actually false, may decline to take cognizance of the petition and hold the petition before it in abeyance, and
instead defer to the second court which has before it the petition for probate of the decedent's alleged last will.
The residence of the decent or the location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter
but merely of venue. If this were otherwise, it would affect the prompt administration of justice. Therefore, the CFI
of Quezon City did not act with grave abuse of discretion nor it acted without jurisdiction.