Mark L. Abragan Special Proceeding Dec.

2, 2017

Comparative analysis of the two cases:

The two cases talks about two kinds of residence or domicile. The case of Eusebio vs
Eusebio talks about permanent domicile, on the other hand in the case of Fule vs. CA residence or
domicile is something that is temporary.
In the case of Eusebio domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a place merely for one
owns health even if coupled with knowledge that one will never again be able, on account of
illness, to return home. There must be an intention to remain in that place and make such place as
his permanent residence. The said case laid the down the requisites to change a persons domicile
and these include the capacity to choose and freedom of choice, physical presence at the place
chosen, and intention to stay therein permanently. These requisites must concur to be able to
validly change a ones domicile. The case of Eusebio talks about legal residence or domicile.

On the other hand, the case of Fule sees residence as temporary. Residence 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.
The case of Fule talks about personal residence. It simply requires bodily presence as
an inhabitant in a given place.

For purposes of probate, Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: If the
decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his
will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First
Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a
foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate the word
resides should be construed to be a temporary, that is it is to be understood within the meaning
given to it in the case of Fule.

These two cases discusses about two kinds of residence or domicile one is the legal domicile or
residence and the other one is the personal or temporary domicile. It is important to know the
difference between the two so that we will know what kind interpretation will we apply, when do
we apply such interpretation, and how do we construe the word in order to properly appreciate a
case.

Eusebio vs. Eusebio

Facts:
Petitioner Eugenio Eusebio filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for his appointment as
administrator of the estate of his father, Andres Eusebio. He alleged that his father, who died on
November 28, 1952, resided in Quezon City. Eugenios siblings (Amanda, Virginia, Juan, Delfin,
Vicente and Carlos), stating that they are illegitimate children of Andres, opposed the petition and
alleged that Andres was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. They prayed that the case be
dismissed upon the ground that venue had been improperly laid. The CFI of Rizal granted
Eugenios petition and overruled his siblings objection.
Issue:
Whether or not the venue had been properly laid in Rizal?
Ruling:
No, it was not properly laid. Don Andres Eusebio up to October 29, 1952, was and had
always been domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. He only bought a house and lot at 889-A
Espana Extension, Quezon City because his son, Dr. Jesus Eusebio, who treated him, resided at
No. 41 P. Florentino St., Quezon City. Even before he was able to transfer to the house he bought,
Andres suffered a stroke and was forced to live in his sons residence. It is well settled that
domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a place merely for one owns health even if
coupled with knowledge that one will never again be able, on account of illness, to return home.
Having resided for over seventy years in Pampanga, the presumption is that Andres retained such
domicile.

Andres had no intention of staying in Quezon City permanently. There is no direct evidence of
such intent Andres did not manifest his desire to live in Quezon City indefinitely; Eugenio did
not testify thereon; and Dr. Jesus Eusebio was not presented to testify on the matter. Andres did
not part with, or alienate, his house in San Fernando, Pampanga. Some of his children remained in
that municipality. In the deed of sale of his house at 889 A Espana Ext., Andres gave San
Fernando, Pampanga, as his residence. The marriage contract signed by Andres when he was
married in articulo mortis to Concepcion Villanueva two days prior to his death stated that his
residence is San Fernando, Pampanga.

The requisites for a change of domicile include (1) capacity to choose and freedom of choice, (2)
physical presence at the place chosen, (3) intention to stay therein permanently. Although Andres
complied with the first two requisites, there is no change of domicile because the third requisite is
absent.

Anent the contention that appellants submitted themselves to the authority of the CFI of Rizal
because they introduced evidence on the residence of the decedent, it must be noted that appellants
specifically made of record that they were NOT submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the
court, except for the purpose only of assailing the same.

In sum, the Court found that Andres was, at the time of his death, domiciled in San Fernando,
Pampanga; and that the CFI of Rizal had no authority to appoint an administrator of the estate of
the deceased because the venue have been laid improperly.

Fule vs. CA
Facts:
Virginia G. Fule filed with the CFI of Laguna a petition for letters of administration
alleging that on April 26, 1973, Amado G. Garcia, a property owner of Calamba, Laguna, died
intestate in the City of Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna, and
in other places, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. At the same time, she moved ex
parte for her appointment as special administratix over the estate. Judge Malvar granted the
motion.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa B. Garcia, the surviving spouse of the deceased,
contending that the decedent resided in Quezon Cuty for 3 months before his death as shown by
his death certificate and therefore have an improper venue; and that the CFI of Calamba lacks
jurisdiction over the petition.The CFI denied the motion and on appeal the CA reversed and
affirmed making Preciosa the administratix. Thus, Fule elevated the matter to the SC on appeal by
certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not the venue was improperly laid?

Held:
Yes. Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case base on the merits
or the substance of the facts. It is a substantive aspect of the trial proceeding. It is granted by law
or by the constitution and cannot be waived or stipulated. On the other hand, Rule 4 of Rules of
Court define venue as the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein real property
involved or a portion thereof is situated. Venue is the location of the court with jurisdiction. It is
more on convenience purposes. Its more on procedural aspect of the case. In some cases it may
be waived or stipulated by the parties.

Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters
of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in
which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court
of First Instance of any province in which he had estate.

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.

In the present case, SC ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased should be the venue
of the court. Amado G. Garcia was in Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna base on his death
certificate. A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at the time of
his death. Thus, the venue for Virginia C. Fules petition for letters of administration was
improperly laid in the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna. Therefore Preciosa B. Garcia
was granted as a special administratix.