Vda.

de Manalo vs CA 1) The decedent resided in QC for 3 months before

GR No. 129242, January 16, 2001 his death as shown by his death certificate and
therefore have an improper venue.
FACTS: 2) The CFI of Calamba lacks jurisdiction over the
Troadic Manalo who died on February 1992, was petition.
survived by his Pilar and his 11 children. The deceased
left several real properties in Manila and a business in CFI denied the motion.
Tarlac. In November 1992, herein respondents, 8 of the
surviving children, filed a petition with RTC Manila for CA reversed and affirmed making Preciosa the
the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father administratix.
and for appointment of their brother Romeo Manalo as
administrator thereof. Hearing was set on February 11, Thus, Fule elevated the matter to the SC on appeal by
1993 and the herein petitioners were granted 10 days certiorari.
within which to file their opposition to the petition.
ISSUES:
ISSUE: a.) Are venue and jurisdiction the same? How can it be
WON the case at bar is covered under Article 151 determined in the present case?
where earnest efforts toward compromise should first b.) What does the word resides in Revised Rules of
be made prior the filing of the petition. Court Rule 73 Section 1 Mean?
c.) Who is entitled as special administratix of the
HELD: estate?
It is a fundamental rule that in the determination of the
nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and Held:
the character of the relief were sought in the complaint 1. No, jurisdiction is defined as the authority to
or petition, shall be controlling. The careful scrutiny of try, hear and decide a case base on the merits
the petition for the issuance of letters of or the substance of the facts. It is a substantive
administration, settlement and distribution of the aspect of the trial proceeding. It is granted by
estate belies herein petitioners claim that the same is law or by the constitution and cannot be
in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The provision waived or stipulated.
of Article 151 is applicable only to ordinary civil
actions. It is clear from the term suit that it refers to On the other hand, Rule 4 of Rules of Court
an action by one person or persons against another or define venue as the proper court which has
other in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues jurisdiction over the area wherein real property
the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of involved or a portion thereof is situated. Venue
an injury or enforcement of a right. It is also the is the location of the court with jurisdiction. It is
intention of the Code Commission as revealed in the more on convenience purposes. Its more on
Report of the Code Commission to make the provision procedural aspect of the case. In some cases it
be applicable only to civil actions. The petition for may be waived or stipulated by the parties.
issuance of letters of administration, settlement, and
distribution of estate is a special proceeding and as Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court
such a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek to provides: If the decedent is an inhabitant of
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Hence, the Philippines at the time of his death,
it must be emphasized that herein petitioners are not whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be
being sued in such case for any cause of action as in proved, or letters of administration granted,
fact no defendant was pronounced therein. 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
VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE vs. CA, PRECIOSA B. of any province in which he had estate.
GARCIA and AGUSTINA B. GARCIA, 74 SCRA 189
(1976) 2. Resides should be viewed or understood in its
popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or
FACTS: physical habitation of a person, actual
Virginia G. Fule (illegitimate sister) filed with the CFI of residence or place of abode. It signifies
Laguna a petition for letters of administration alleging physical presence in a place and actual stay
that on April 26, 1973, Amado G. Garcia, a property thereat. In this popular sense, the term means
owner of Calamba, Laguna, died intestate in the City of merely residence, that is, personal residence,
Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties in not legal residence or domicile. Residence
Calamba, Laguna, and in other places, within the simply requires bodily presence as
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. At the same time, an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile
she moved ex parte for her appointment as special requires bodily presence in that place and also
administratix over the estate. Judge Malvar granted the an intention to make it ones domicile. No
motion. particular length of time of residence is
required though; however, the residence must
A motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa B. be more than temporary.
Garcia, the surviving spouse of the
deceased, contending that: 3. 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 its assets and liabilities to Union Savings and Mortgage
Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna base Bank.
on his death certificate. A death certificate is
admissible to prove the residence of the Demand letters for the settlement of his account were
decedent at the time of his death. sent by petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP)
to Edmund, but the latter failed to heed the same and
Withal, the conclusion becomes imperative that the refused to pay.
venue for Virginia C. Fules petition for letters of
administration was improperly laid in the Court of First Thus, on February 5, 1988, the petitioner filed a
Instance of Calamba, Laguna. Therefore Preciosa B. Complaint for sum of money against the heirs of Efraim
Garcia was granted as a special administratix. Santibaez, Edmund and Florence. Summonses were
issued against both, but the one intended for Edmund
was not served since he was in the United States and
there was no information on his address or the date of
his return to the Philippines.

Accordingly, the complaint was narrowed down to

respondent Florence S. Ariola.
UNION BANK v SANTIBANEZ
On December 7, 1988, respondent Florence S. Ariola
Facts: filed her Answer and alleged that the loan documents
On May 31, 1980, the First Countryside Credit did not bind her since she was not a party thereto.
Corporation (FCCC) and Efraim M. Santibaez entered Considering that the joint agreement signed by her and
into a loan agreement in the amount of P128,000.00. her brother Edmund was not approved by the probate
The amount was intended for the payment of the court, it was null and void; hence, she was not liable to
purchase price of one (1) unit Ford 6600 Agricultural the petitioner under the joint agreement.
All-Purpose Diesel Tractor. In view thereof, Efraim and Consequently, trial on the merits ensued and a
his son, Edmund, executed a promissory note in favor decision was subsequently rendered by the court
of the FCCC, the principal sum payable in five equal dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The decretal
annual amortizations of P43,745.96 due on May 31, portion of the RTC decision reads:
1981 and every May 31st thereafter up to May 31, The appellate court found that the appeal was not
1985. meritorious and held that the petitioner should
have filed its claim with the probate court. It
On December 13, 1980, the FCCC and Efraim entered further held that the partition made in the
into another loan agreement, this time in the amount agreement was null and void, since no valid
of P123,156.00. It was intended to pay the balance of partition may be had until after the will has been
the purchase price of another unit of Ford 6600 probated.
Agricultural All-Purpose Diesel Tractor, with
accessories, and one (1) unit Howard Rotamotor Model Issue:
AR 60K. Again, Efraim and his son, Edmund, executed a Whether or not the joint agreement was valid.
promissory note for the said amount in favor of the
FCCC. Aside from such promissory note, they also Ruling:
signed a Continuing Guaranty Agreement for the loan No, the joint agreement is invalid. The Court is posed to
dated December 13, 1980. Sometime in February resolve the following issues: a) whether or not the
1981, Efraim died, leaving a holographic will. partition in the Agreement executed by the heirs is
valid; b) whether or not the heirs assumption of the
Subsequently in March 1981, testate proceedings indebtedness of the deceased is valid; and c) whether
commenced before the RTC of Iloilo City. On April 9, the petitioner can hold the heirs liable on the obligation
1981, Edmund, as one of the heirs, was appointed as of the deceased.
the special administrator of the estate of the decedent. In testate succession, there can be no valid partition
among the heirs until after the will has been probated.
During the pendency of the testate proceedings, the The law enjoins the probate of a will and the public
surviving heirs, Edmund and his sister Florence requires it, because unless a will is probated and notice
Santibaez Ariola, executed a Joint Agreement dated thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person
July 22, 1981, wherein they agreed to divide between to dispose of his property by will may be rendered
themselves and take possession of the three (3) nugatory.
tractors; that is, two (2) tractors for Edmund and one
(1) tractor for Florence. The authentication of a will decides no other question
than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator
Each of them was to assume the indebtedness of their and the compliance with those requirements or
late father to FCCC, corresponding to the tractor solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of
respectively taken by them. a will.

On August 20, 1981, a Deed of Assignment with This, of course, presupposes that the properties to be
Assumption of Liabilities was executed by and between partitioned are the same properties embraced in the
FCCC and Union Savings and Mortgage Bank, wherein will. In the present case, the deceased, Efraim
the FCCC as the assignor, among others, assigned all Santibaez, left a holographic will which contained,
inter alia, the provision which reads as follows:
 (e) All other properties, real or personal, which I manner where the circumstances surrounding the
own and may be discovered later after my demise, execution of the instrument and the intention of the
shall be distributed in the proportion indicated in testator should be taken into account. Considering that
the immediately preceding paragraph in favor of the questioned document is Segundos holographic
Edmund and Florence, my children. will, and that the law favors testacy over intestacy, the
probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. It is
The question that now comes to fore is whether the settled that testate proceedings for the settlement of
heirs assumption of the indebtedness of the decedent the estate of the decedent take precedence over
is binding. We rule in the negative. The partition being intestate proceedings for the same purpose.
invalid as earlier discussed, the heirs in effect did not
receive any such tractor. It follows then that the
assumption of liability cannot be given any force and Roberts v. Leonidas
effect. 129 SCRA 754

FACTS:
G.R. Nos. 140371-72 Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died in 1977.
November 27, 2006 He was survived by his second wife (Maxine), their two
children (Pete and Linda), and by his two children by a
DY YIENG SEANGIO, et. al., vs. HON. AMOR A. first marriage (Juanita and Ethel) which ended by
REYES divorce.

Facts: Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, California

Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement on January 23, 1959. One will disposed of his Philippine
of the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio estate described as conjugal property of himself and
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioners his second wife. The second will disposed of his estate
opposed contending that Segundo left a holographic outside the Philippines. The two wills and a codicil were
will disinheriting one of the private presented for probate in Utah by Maxine on March
respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause, thus, the 1978. Maxine admitted that she received notice of the
intestate proceedings are to be automatically intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel in January
suspended and replaced by the proceedings for the 1978. The Utah Court admitted the two wills and codicil
probate of the will. A petition for the probate of the to probate on April 1978 and was issued upon
holographic will of Segundo was subsequently filed by consideration of the stipulation between the attorneys
petitioners before the RTC. Private respondents moved for Maxine and Ethel.
for its dismissal on the ground that the document
purporting to be the holographic will of Segundo does Also in April 1978, Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of
not contain any disposition of the estate of the the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into a
deceased and thus does not meet the definition of a compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate.
will under Article 783 of the Civil Code as the will only
shows an alleged act of disinheritance and nothing As mentioned, in January 1978, an intestate proceeding
else. Petitioners filed their opposition to the motion to was instituted by Ethel. On March 1978, Maxine filed an
dismiss contending that disinheritance constitutes a opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate
disposition of the estate of a decedent and that the proceeding on the ground of pendency of the Utah
rule on preterition does not apply because Segundos probate proceedings. She submitted to the court a
will does not constitute a universal heir or heirs to the copy of Grimms will. However, pursuant to the
exclusion of one or more compulsory heirs. The RTC compromise agreement, Maxine withdrew the
issued its order dismissing the petition for probate opposition and the motion to dismiss. The court
proceedings as the will clearly shows that there is ignored the will found in the record.The estate was
preterition since the other heirs were omitted, Article partitioned.
854 of the New Civil Code thus applies. Petitioner filed In 1980, Maxine filed a petition praying for the probate
for motion for reconsideration but was denied. of the two wills (already probated in Utah), that the
partition approved by the intestate court be set aside
Issue: and the letters of administration revoked, that Maxine
WON the will executed is a holographic will. be appointed executrix and Ethel be ordered to
account for the properties received by them and return
Ruling: the same to Maxine. Maxine alleged that they were
Segundos document, although it may initially come defrauded due to the machinations of Ethel that the
across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms compromise agreement was illegal and the intestate
to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by proceeding was void because Grimm died testate so
law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of partition was contrary to the decedents wills.
Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa can
be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was
and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of denied by Judge Leonidas for lack of merit.
the latters property, the disinheritance of Alfredo,
nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other ISSUE:
words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of Whether the judge committed grave abuse of
the property of the testator Segundo in favor of those discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying
who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo. Ethels motion to dismiss.
Holographic wills, therefore, should be construed in a
HELD: settled that questions of venue may be waived when
We hold that respondent judge did not commit any not timely objected to. Hence, the CFI Manila may
grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of continue with the probate case, without prejudice to
jurisdiction, in denying Ethels motion to dismiss. petitioner's successful action for his compulsory
recognition as heir.
A testate proceeding is proper in this case because
Grimm died with two wills and no will shall pass either
Petition for certiorari was denied.
real or personal property unless it is proved and
allowed (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of
Court).
Cuenco vs. CA
G.R. No. L-24742, October 26, 1973
The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous
that the estate of a person who died testate should be
The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of
settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the
the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to
intestate case should be consolidated with the testate
the exclusion of all other courts
proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate
proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.
FACTS:
Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila. He was
survived by his widow and two minor sons, residing in
VICENTE URIARTE vs. CFI, et. al. G.R. Nos. L-
Quezon City, and children of the first marriage, residing
21938-39 May 29, 1970
in Cebu. Lourdes, one of the children from the first
marriage, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration
Facts: Petitioner Vicente Uriarte filed a petition for the with the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cebu, alleging that
settlement of the estate of the late Don Juan Uriarte y the senator died intestate in Manila but a resident of
Goite, a non-resident alien, in CFI Negros Oriental, Cebu with properties in Cebu and Quezon City.
alleging that he is an acknowledged natural son of the
decedent and his sole heir. Petitioner had previously The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Cayetano
initiated an action before the same court for Cuenco, the second wife, filed a petition with CFI Rizal
compulsory acknowledgment as natural son but there for the probate of the last will and testament, where
was no final judgment yet. Private respondents, she was named executrix. Rosa also filed an opposition
nephews of the decedent, filed an opposition alleging and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but this court held in
that the decedent had left a will in Spain. Later, the abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI
Quezon shall have acted on the probate proceedings.
same respondents filed a petition for probate in CFI
Manila using the alleged last will of the decedent, and
Lourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI
then filed a motion to dismiss the special proceedings Quezon, on ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or
in CFI Negros Oriental. The CFI Manila allowed the improper venue, considering that CFI Cebu already
petition for probate, and the CFI Negros dismissed the acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The
intestate proceeding. Petitioner then filed a motion for opposition and motion to dismiss were denied. Upon
reconsideration in CFI Negros which was denied. He appeal CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a writ of
also filed an omnibus motion in CFI Manila asking for prohibition to CFI Quezon.
the dismissal of the probate proceeding on the ground
that it was the CFI Negros that took first cognizance of ISSUES:
the case. Said motion was denied by CFI Manila. Hence 1. Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of
this petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse prohibition
of discretion of the two courts in CFI Manila and Negros 2. Whether or not CFI Quezon acted without
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in taking
Oriental.
cognizance and assuming exclusive jurisdiction
over the probate proceedings in pursuance to CFI
Issues: Whether or not the dismissal of the special Cebu's order expressly consenting in deference to
proceedings in CFI Negros was proper; and whether or the precedence of probate over intestate
not CFI Manila has jurisdiction to probate the alleged proceedings
will.
HELD:
Held: On the first issue, it was proper that the The Supreme Court found that CA erred in law in
intestate proceeding in Negros CFI be discontinued issuing the writ of prohibition against the Quezon City
because of the fact that the decedent had left a will. It court from proceeding with the testate proceedings
is well-settled that testacy is favored over intestacy, and annulling and setting aside all its orders and
and that any intestate proceeding may be terminated actions, particularly its admission to probate of the last
at any time when it is discovered that the deceased will and testament of the deceased and appointing
petitioner-widow as executrix thereof without bond
had left a will. However, the proper thing the private
pursuant to the deceased testator's wish.
respondents should have done was to file the petition
for probate in CFI Negros which was already hearing On Venue and Jurisdiction
the intestate proceeding. The issue now is improper Under Rule 73, the court first taking cognizance of the
venue, not jurisdiction. Unfortunately for petitioner, he settlement of the estate of a decent, shall exercise
is now guilty of laches for failing to timely object to the jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
filing of the petition for probate in CFI Manila. It is
The residence of the decent or the location of his order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of
estate is not an element of jurisdiction over the subject all other courts.
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