Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons; Rule 73: Venue and Process 6.
6. 30MAR1964 - P found out about the intestate proceeding in Cebu and filed an
G.R. L-24742 - Rosa Cayetano Cuenco vs CA
Teehankee
Senator Cuenco died, survived by 2 families. The children of his first marriage filed an
intestate petition in Cebu where they lived while his surviving widow filed a petition for
probate of the last will and testament in QC. Probate proceedings take precedence over
intestate proceedings so the Cebu court deferred their action pending the resolution of the
QC proceedings. The respondents filed a MTD claiming improper venue considering that
their petition was filed first in Cebu. SC held that the proper venue was QC considering
that the Cebu court deferred to QC allowing them to determine the venue, which was the
residence of the decedent at the time of death. The last will and testament stated QC as
his residence. Cebu court was not wrong to refuse to take cognisance of the intestate
proceedings and the QC court was not wrong for exercising its jurisdiction and proceeding
to resolve the petition.
DOCTRINE
The residence of the deceased or the location of his estate is NOT an element of
jurisdiction over the subject matter but merely of venue
The rule does NOT state that the court with whom the estate or intestate petition is first
filed acquired jurisdiction
Since the rule deals with venue and comity between courts of equal and co-ordinate
jurisdiction, a fair reading of it would indicate that the court with whom the petition is first
filed must also first take cognisance of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise
jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of other courts.
FACTS
1. 25FEB1964 - Senator Mariano Cuenco died, survived by (1) his widow
(petitioner) and their 2 minor songs (Mariano and Jesus) residing in Sta. Mesa
Heights, QC and (2) his children of the first marriage (respondents) Manuel,
Lourdes, Concepcion, Carmen, Consuelo and Teresita residing in Cebu
2. 5MAR1964 - 9 days after his death, the respondents (Rs) filed a petition for
letters of administration with the CFI of Cebu alleging: (1) Senator Cuenco was a
resident of Cebu when he died (2) he left real and personal properties in Cebu
and QC
3. CFI: set the petition for hearing, directed that due notice be given to all the heirs
and interested persons, ordered the publication thereof at La Prensa (a
newspaper of general circulation)
4. order issued stating that the petition for the appointment of a special
administrator was premature because the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction
due to the lack of compliance with the requisite publication
5. 12MAR1964 - Petitioner (P) filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal (QC) for the
probate of the deceased’s last will and testament and for the issuance of letters
testamentary in her favor as the surviving window and executrix in the last will
and testament
opposition and MTD
7. Cebu court held its resolution of on P’s MTD in abeyance until after the CFI of
QC resolved the petition for probate of the document purporting to be the last will
and testament — not opposed by Rs
8. Rs filed an opposition and MTD in the QC court opposing probate of the will and
for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue alleging that her petition in Cebu
vested her with exclusive jurisdiction
9. QC denied the MTD: (1) probate proceedings take precedence over an intestate
proceeding (2) residence of the senator at the time of death was in QC
a. Rs’ opposition actually seemed to agree that the probate proceeding
should take precedence, just that it should be held in Cebu. the court
noted however that the last will and testament of Senator Cuenco
stated 2 residences, his QC residence first then the Cebu second.
Court said that when a party has 2 residences, the first choice is
deemed to be his domicile.
10. the hearing for probate of the last will was held without the attendance of the
oppositors. 3 witnesses were heard and documentary evidence was presented
(residence certificates, ITR, passport, deed of donation) all of which indicated
that his residence was in QC. The court held that the last will and testament was
freely and voluntarily executed with all the formalities of the law and appointed P
as executrix
11. Rs filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA instead of appealing
the order, the CA ruled in their favor: sec. 1 Rule 73 covers both testate and
intestate proceedings. Since the petition in Cebu was filed ahead, it is the court
whose jurisdiction was first invoked and attached and which can alone pass upon
the issues of whether the decedent left a valid will and if he was a resident of
Cebu when he died
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. w/n the CA erred in ordering the QC court to refrain from proceeding with the
testate proceedings and annulling all its orders — YES
2. if the QC court acted without jurisdiction or with GAD in taking cognisance and
assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the probate proceedings, in pursuance of
the Cebu court’s order agreeing that probate proceedings take precedence and
should be acted upon first — NO
a. the Judiciary Act confers original jurisdiction upon all CFI over all
matters of probate both of testate and intestate estates (i.e. BOTH
courts had jurisdiction over the subject matter)
b. Rule 73 ROC lays down the rule of venue to prevent conflict among the
different courts which may otherwise properly assume jurisdiction: “the
court first taking cognisance of the settlement of the estate of a
decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
courts”
 c. the residence of the deceased or the location of his estate is NOT
an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter but merely of
venue.
i. note that no jurisdiction means that the proceedings already
had would be annulled and everything would have to be done
over again whereas wrong venue is merely a waivable
procedural defect and courts usually prefer not to restart
proceedings on the basis of improper venue
d. note that the rule does NOT state that the court with whom the
estate or intestate petition is first filed acquired jurisdiction
(otherwise opposing parties would just race to file it first)
e. since the rule deals with venue and comity between courts of equal and
co-ordinate jurisdiction, a fair reading of it would indicate that the court
with whom the petition is first filed must also first take cognisance
of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over
it to the exclusion of other courts.
f. It may, however, upon learning that a petition for probate of the
decedent’s last will will has been presented in another court where the
decedent had his conjugal domicile and resided with his surviving
widow and children, and that the allegation of the intestate petition
before it stating that the decedent died intestate may actually be false
(i.e. he actually died testate), may define to take cognisance of the
petition and hold it in abeyance (which is what happened here)
i. if the will was admitted to probate by the QC court (which it
was) then it would definitely decline to take cognisance of the
intestate petition which would have been shown to be false,
leaving the exercise of jurisdiction to the QC court
ii. in other words, the Cebu court was correct to decline to take
cognisance of the intestate petition (since probate
proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings)
iii. the QC court then did not act without jurisdiction in taking
cognisance of the probate petition. under Rule 73, the Cebu
court must first take cognisance over the estate of the
decedent to the exclusion of others but the Cebu court
declined to do so, allowing the QC court to proceed and also
determine the senator’s residence. In any case, the QC court
did have jurisdiction over the subject matter, Rule 73 merely
stated the rule of venue.
g. the QC court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the decedent’s estate on
the basis of the will presented and its finding that QC was the first
choice of residence, and with the deference of the Cebu court, could
not be contested except by appeal from the court in the original case.
(this is expressly stated in the last paragraph of Section 1, Rule 73)
3. re: determination of residence
a. CA held that the issue of residence comes within the competence of
whichever court is considered to prevail in the exercise of jurisdiction
i.e. Cebu — in this case, however, the Cebu court declined to take
cognisance of the intestate petition and deferred to the proceedings in
QC effectively asking the QC court to determine the residence of the
decedent and if he had a last will and testament which would determine
the proper venue.
b. additionally, Rule 76 section 2 requires that the petition for allowance of
a will must show “jurisdictional facts”. in probate proceedings, these
are:
1. the death of the decedent
2. his residence at the time of death in the province
where the probate court is sitting
3. if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, his having
left his estate in such province
c. it would be unjust and inequitable to have P compelled to go to Cebu to
submit the decedent’s will for probate in a new proceeding considering
that she timely filed the petition and is entitled to preference in the
administration of her husband’s estate aside from the fact that the Cebu
court deferred to the QC court
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered reversing the appealed decision and
resolution of the CA and the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
originally filed by respondents with the Court of Appeals is ordered dismissed. No costs.
OTHER NOTES
RULE 73. SECTION 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled.—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
Regional Trial Court in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and
if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Regional Trial Court of any province in which
he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a
decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The
jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the
decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding,
except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction
appears on the record.
DIGESTER: Anton Mendoza.