APOLONIA BANAYAD FRIANELA, Petitioner, vs.

SERVILLANO BANAYAD, JR., Respondent

G.R. No. 169700
July 30, 2009

1. Identify the following:

a. Parties

The parties in this case are Apolonia Banayad Frianela and Servillano
Banayad Jr. who are petitioner and respondent, respectively.

b. Petition filed in the Court of Origin:

On June 3, 1991, a petition for allowance of will dated November 18, 1985
was filed by Apolonia before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, docketed Sp. Proc.
No. 3664-P.

c. Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 was the law in force at the time the petition for
allowance of the holographic will was instituted. The law provides that the RTC, which
is the Court of Origin in this case, shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
matter of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds twenty thousand pesos (Php 20,000.00)

d. Venue of the Court of Origin

The venue of the Court of Origin is Pasay City.

e. Decision of the Court of Origin

On September 29, 1995, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision wherein it
declared that the September 27, 1989 holographic will was revoked by the November
18, 1985 will, allowing the former, and appointing respondent as the administrator of
the estate.

f. Decision of the Supreme Court

Sp. Proc. No. 3664-P filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Did the court of origin validly acquire jurisdiction?

The applicable law at the time of the filing of the petition confers jurisdiction on
RTC or MTCs over probate proceedings, depending on the gross value of the estate.
Since jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the allegations or averments in the
complaint or petition, the gross value of the estate must have been stated in the
petition. Since the petition failed to state the gross value of the estate of Moises, the
RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction.

3. Was the venue proper?

The law provides that if the decedent was a resident of the Philippines,
regardless if he/she is a citizen or alien, his will shall be proved in the Court of the
province where he resided at the time of death.

The facts of the case failed to state the last residence of the decedent before he
died.

G.R. No. 133743

February 6, 2007
EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent

1. Indentify the following:

a. Parties

The parties in this case are Edgar San Luis who is the petitioner and
Felicidad San Luis, the respondent.

b. Petition filed in the Court of Origin

A Petition for Letters of Administration was filed by the respondent before

the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, docketed as SP. Proc. No. M-3708.

c. Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

The Regional Trial Court, under

d. Venue of the Court of Origin

The venue of the Court of Origin is in Makati City.

e. Decision of the Court of Origin

 RTC dismissed the Petition for Letters of Administration, holding that the
venue was improperly laid and that the respondent has no legal capacity to file the
petition.

On the issue of venue, RTC explained that at the time of Felicisimo’s

death, he was a duly elected governor and a resident of the Province of Laguna.
Therefore the petition should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna and not in Makati
City.

On the issue of legal capacity, RTC rule that the respondent’s marriage
with the decedent is void ab initio. Therefore, she has no legal capacity to file the
Petition for Letters of Administration.

f. Decision of the Supreme Court

The petition for review on certiorari filed against the Decision of the Court
of Appeals which reversed and set aside the decision of the Trial Court was denied by
the Supreme Court.

As provided in Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the Petition for

Letters of Administration of the estate should be filed in the RTC of the province in
which the decedent resides. The term “resides” connotes “actual residence” as
distinguished from “legal residence or domicile”. “Resides” should be viewed or
understood in its popular sense. It means personal, actual or physical habitation or a
person, actual residence or place of abode.

2. Did the court of origin validly acquire jurisdiction?

Yes, the Court of Origin validly acquired jurisdiction.

The law provides that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over
proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased when the gross value of
the estate exceeds Php 400,000.

In the petition filed by the respondent, she alleged that the decedent left
real properties, both conjugal and exclusive, valued at Php 30, 304, 178.00, more or
less. Hence, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction.

3. Was the venue proper?

Yes the venue was properly laid. Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court
provides that the place of resident of the decedent is determinative of the venue for the
settlement of his estate. The term “place of residence” 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.

Although Felicisimo discharged his duties as governor in Laguna, he actually

resided in Alabang, Muntinlupa, as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
January 5, 1983, showing that the deceased purchased the residential property in Sta.
Cruz Laguna, the Billing Statemens from the Philippine Heart Center and Chinese
General Hospital for the period August to December 1991, indicating the address of
Felicisimo at “100 San Juanico, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa” and the proof of
membership of Felicisimo in Ayala Alabang Village Association and Ayala Country Club.

Thus, the Petition for Letters of Administration was properly filed in Makati City.

G.R. No. L-24742 October 26, 1973

ROSA CAYETANO CUENCO, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DIVISION, MANUEL CUENCO,
LOURDES CUENCO, CONCEPCION CUENCO MANGUERRA, CARMEN CUENCO,
CONSUELO CUENCO REYES, and TERESITA CUENCO GONZALEZ, respondents

1. Indentify the following:

a. Parties

The parties in this case are Rosa Cayetano Cuenco who is the petitioner
and the Honorable Court of Appeals, Manuel Cuenco, Lourdes Cuenco, Concepcion
Cuenco Manguerra, Carmen Cuenco, Consuelo Cuenco Reyes and Teresita Cuenco
Gonzales who are the respondents.

b. Petition filed in the Court of Origin

The petition filed in the Court of Origin is a Petition for Probate of the last
will and testament and for the issuance of letters testamentary in favor of the
petitioner, Rosa Cayetano Cuenco. The petition was filed on March 12, 1964 at the
Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) and docketed as Special Proceeding No.
Q-7898.

c. Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court provides that 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.

Gleaned from above, the Court of First Instance, which is the Court of
Origin in this case, has jurisdiction over the probate of will and grant of letters of
administration.

d. Venue of the Court of Origin

The venue of the Court of Origin is in Rizal, Quezon City.

e. Decision of the Court of Origin

The Quezon City Court, in its order dated May 15, 1964, admitted to
probate the decedent’s last will and testament as having been “freely and voluntarily
executed by the testator” and “with all the formalities of the law” and appointed the
petitioner-widow, as executrix of his estate without bond “following the desire of the
testator” in his will as provided.

f. Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals and dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction originally filed by the respondents with the Court of Appeals.

2. Did the court of origin validly acquire jurisdiction?

Yes, the court of origin validly acquired jurisdiction.

Section 1, Rule 73 provides that the court first taking cognizance of the
settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all
other courts.

In this case, respondent Lourdes Cuenco filed a Petition for Letters of

Administration with the Court of First Instance of Cebu on March 5, 1964, alleging that
the decedent died intestate. However, on March 12, 1964, herein petitioner filed a
Petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal (quezon City) and for the issuance of
Letters Testamentary. The respondents in this case assailed the jurisdiction of Quezon
City Court to entertain the petitioner’s petition in view of the alleged exclusive
jurisdiction of Cebu court.
 The SC held that the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) has
jurisdiction. The Rule 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”.
Since the Quezon City court took cognizance over the probate petition before it
and assumed jurisdiction over the estate, with the consent and deference of the Cebu
court, the Quezon City court is authorized to exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all
other courts.

3. Was the venue proper?

Yes, the venue was properly laid.

The Rules provide that the proper venue for the settle of estate of the
deceased is the Province in which the decedent resides at the time of death.

The probate of the will shows that the decedent, at the time when he
executed his Last Will, clearly stated that he is a resident of 69 Pi y Margal, Sta. Mesa
Heights, Quezon City, and also of Cebu City. He made the former as his first choice and
the latter as his second choice of residence. Therefore, the petition was properly filed at
the Court of First Instance in Rizal (Quezon City).

G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970

VICENTE URIARTE, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL (12th Judicial
District) THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH IV, JUAN
URIARTE ZAMACONA and HIGINIO URIARTE, respondents.

1. Indentify the following:

a. Parties

b. Petition filed in the Court of Origin

c. Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

d. Venue of the Court of Origin

e. Decision of the Court of Origin

 f. Decision of the Supreme Court

2. Did the court of origin validly acquire jurisdiction?

3. Was the venue proper?