Uriarte vs, Court of First Instance

Facts of the Case:

Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain and he left reasonable properties in the Philippines.
Vicente Uriarte, who is claiming to be the son and sole heir of the deceased, filed a petition for
the intestate settlement of the estate of the deceased in the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental. However, said petition was opposed by the nephews of Juan stating that there is a
valid will left by the deceased in Spain, a copy of which is being requested. Then, the nephews
filed a settlement of the estate in the court of Manila, on the basis of the alleged will of the
deceased.
Vicente filed an opposition to the settlement of estate in the court of Manila stating that
the court of Negros Occidental has already acquired original jurisdiction over the case. The
opposition of Vicente was dismissed together with the intestate settlement In the CFI of Negros.
Hence, Vicente filed a petition for certiorari questioning the dismissal of the intestate
settlement in the CFI of Negros.
Issue:
Whether or not the intestate settlement should be dismissed.
Ruling of the Case:
The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the intestate proceeding 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 v. CA
o

The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts

FACTS:
Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila. He was survived by his widow and two minor sons,
residing in Quezon City, and children of the first marriage, residing in Cebu. 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 senator died intestate in Manila but a resident of Cebu
with properties in Cebu and Quezon City.
The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Cayetano Cuenco, the second wife, filed a petition
with CFI Rizal for the probate of the last will and testament, where she was named executrix.
Rosa 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.
ISSUEs:
o

Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition

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 Supreme Court found that CA erred in law in issuing the writ of prohibition against the
Quezon City court from proceeding with the testate proceedings and annulling and setting aside
all its orders and actions, particularly its admission to probate of the last will and testament of
the deceased and appointing petitioner-widow as executrix thereof without bond pursuant to the
deceased testator's wish.
On Venue and Jurisdiction
Under Rule 73, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decent, shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
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.
The court with whom the petition is first filed must also first take cognizance of the settlement of
the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other courts.

Advincula vs. Teodoro R 82 1 99 phil 413

Emilio Advincula was appointed special administrator, then later regular administrator of his
deceased wifes estate. After he qualified as administrator, his brothers-in-law submitted a
document purporting to be the deceasedd will. Emilio opposed the probate of the will on the
ground that the signature was not his wifes and even if it was, the same was procured by fraud.
One of the brothers-in-law, Enrique Lacson, prayed that he (Enrique) be appointed administrator
in lieu of Emilio. During the hearing, it was alleged that Emilio was incompetent, incapable and
unsuitable to act as administrator because Emilio is foreign to the estate. The court ruled in
favor of Enriques motion. Emilio filed an MR but the same was denied so he instituted the
present action for certiorari to annul the lower courts order.
ISSUE: WON the lower court acted with GADLEJ in granting Lacsons motion

HELD: Yes. The appointment of Lacson as administrator in lieu of Advincula is predicated on the
fact that Lacson was named executor of the deceasedd will. This provision, however cannot be
enforced until the said will is admitted to probate.
The discovery of a will of the deceased does not ipso facto nullify letters of administration
already issued or even authorize the revocation thereof until the alleged will is proved and
allowed by the court.
Furthermore, the lower court appears to have followed the argument of the respondents that
Emilio, being foreign to the deceaseds estate is incapable of being an administrator. This
argument is untenable because from the viewpoint of logic and experience, a stranger may be
competent, capable and fit to be administrator of the estate in the same way that a family
member can be incompetent, incapable and unfit to do so. Besides, Emilio as the surviving
spouse if a forced heir of the deceased. He is entitled to of all property apart from his share of
the other half thereof as heir of the deceased since all property of the marriage is presumed to
belong to the conjugal partnership# 10 Dinglasan v. Ang Chia
Facts:
Dinglasan, et al filed a case in CFI Capiz against Ang Chia, her son Claro Lee and one Lee
Bun Ting to recover the ownership and possession of a parcel of land located in Capiz and
damages in the amount of P1k. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a motion for the appointment of a
receiver to which counsel for defendants objected. The motion was withdrawn upon knowledge of
the pendency of intestate proceedings in the same court, and field an amended complaint
including administratrix of estate (widow Ang Chia), who was already a party defendant in her
own capacity and moved for the increase of her bond and an appointment of a co-administrator.
Administratrix then filed motion to dismiss the claim in intervention and objected to the
motions.
Issue:
Whether or not intestate proceedings should be held in abeyance pending determination of civil
case against administratrix
Held:
The heirs of an estate may not demand the closing of an intestate proceeding at any time
where there is a pending case against administrator. The probate court can rightfully hold in
abeyance the closing of the intestate proceedings until the civil case is settled. To hold otherwise
would render Section 17, Rule 3 and Section 1, Rule 88 nugatory.

RODRIGUEZ V BORJA
17 SCRA 418
REYES JBL; June 21, 1966

NATURE
Petition for Certiorari
FACTS
- Fr. Rodriguez died in Manila. On March 4, 1963, respondents Pangilinan and Jacalan delivered to
the Clerk of Court of Bulacan a purported last will and testament of Fr. Rodriguez.On March 8,
1963, Maria Rodriguez and Angela Rodriguez filed a petition for leave of court to allow them to
examine the alleged will, which was withdrawn
- On March 12, 1963, the Rodriguezes, petitioners herein, filed before CFI of Rizal a petition for
the settlement of the intestate estate of Fr. Rodriguez alleging, among other things, that Fr.
Rodriguez was a resident of Paranaque, Rizal, and died without leaving a will and praying that
Maria Rodriguez be appointed as Special Administratrix of the estate.
- On same day, Pangilinan and Jacalan filed a petition for the probation of the will delivered by
them on March 4, 1963. It was stipulated by the parties that Fr. Rodriguez was born in Paranaque,
Rizal; that he was Parish priest of the Catholic Church of Hagonoy, Bulacan, from 1930 up to the
time of his death in 1963; that he was buried in Paranaque, and that he left real properties in
Rizal, Cavite, Quezon City and Bulacan.
- The Rodriguezes contend that since the intestate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal was filed at 8:00 A.M. on March 12, 1963 while the petition for probate was filed in CFI
Bulacan at 11:00 A.M. on the same date, the latter Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
petition for probate.
- Pangilinan and Jacalan, aver that the CFI of Bulacan acquired jurisdiction over the case upon
delivery by them of the will to the Clerk of Court on March 4, 1963, and that the case in CFI
Bulacan therefore has precedence over the case filed in Rizal on March 12, 1963.

ISSUE
WON CFI Bulacan had jurisdiction over the case
HELD
YES
- The jurisdiction of CFI Bulacan became vested upon the delivery thereto of the will of the late Fr
Rodriguez on March 4, 1963, even if no petition for its allowance was filed until later, because
upon the will being deposited, the court could, motu proprio, have taken steps to fix the time and
place for proving the will, and issued the corresponding notices as under Sec 3, Rule 76, of the
Revised Rules of Court
- The use of the disjunctive in the words "when a will is delivered to OR a petition for the
allowance of a will is filed" plainly indicates that the court may act upon the mere deposit therein
of a decedent's testament, even if no petition for its allowance is as yet filed. Where the petition
for probate is made after the deposit of the will, the petition is deemed to relate back to the time
when the will was delivered. Since the testament of Fr. Rodriguez was submitted and delivered to
CFI Bulacan on March 4, while petitioners initiated intestate proceedings in CFI Rizal only on
March 12, 8 days later, the precedence and exclusive jurisdiction of CFI Bulacan is incontestable.

- But, petitioners object, section 3 of revised Rule 76 speaks of a will being delivered to "the
Court having jurisdiction," and in the case at bar the Bulacan court did not have it because the
decedent was domiciled in Rizal province. We can not disregard Fr. Rodriguez's 33 years of
residence as parish priest in Hagonoy, Bulacan (1930-1963); but even if we do so, and consider
that he retained throughout some animus revertendi to the place of his birth in Rizal, that detail
would not imply that the Bulacan court lacked jurisdiction. As ruled in previous decisions, the
power to settle decedents' estates is conferred by law upon all CFIs, and the domicile of the
testator only affects the venue but not the jurisdiction of the Court (In re Kaw Singco, 74 Phil.
239; Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484; Bernabe vs. Vergara, 73 Phil. 676). Neither party denies that
the late Fr. Rodriguez is deceased, or that he left personal property in Hagonoy, province of
Bulacan. That is sufficient in this case.
Disposition Petition for certiorari is DENIED.