Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Eusebio v. Eusebio

    Uploaded by

    pduyan
    The Supreme Court ruled that venue was not properly laid in Rizal for the administration of Andres Eusebio's estate. While Andres briefly stayed in Quezon City near the end of his life to receive medical care from his son, the evidence showed that Andres had lived in Pampanga for over 70 years and did not intend to remain permanently in Quezon City. As Andres retained his domicile in Pampanga, the Court of First Instance of Rizal did not have authority over the administration of his estate. The petition filed by Eugenio Eusebio in Rizal to be appointed administrator was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Eusebio v. Eusebio

    Uploaded by

    pduyan
    45 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that venue was not properly laid in Rizal for the administration of Andres Eusebio's estate. While Andres briefly stayed in Quezon City near the end of his life to receive medical care from his son, the evidence showed that Andres had lived in Pampanga for over 70 years and did not intend to remain permanently in Quezon City. As Andres retained his domicile in Pampanga, the Court of First Instance of Rizal did not have authority over the administration of his estate. The petition filed by Eugenio Eusebio in Rizal to be appointed administrator was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    s

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that venue was not properly laid in Rizal for the administration of Andres Eusebio's estate. While Andres briefly stayed in Quezon City near the end of his life to receive medical care from his son, the evidence showed that Andres had lived in Pampanga for over 70 years and did not intend to remain permanently in Quezon City. As Andres retained his domicile in Pampanga, the Court of First Instance of Rizal did not have authority over the administration of his estate. The petition filed by Eugenio Eusebio in Rizal to be appointed administrator was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views1 page

    Eusebio v. Eusebio

    Uploaded by

    pduyan
    The Supreme Court ruled that venue was not properly laid in Rizal for the administration of Andres Eusebio's estate. While Andres briefly stayed in Quezon City near the end of his life to receive medical care from his son, the evidence showed that Andres had lived in Pampanga for over 70 years and did not intend to remain permanently in Quezon City. As Andres retained his domicile in Pampanga, the Court of First Instance of Rizal did not have authority over the administration of his estate. The petition filed by Eugenio Eusebio in Rizal to be appointed administrator was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. L-8409: In the matter of the Intestate of the deceased Andres Eusebio.

    Eugenio Eusebio
    vs. Amanda Eusebio, Virginia Eusebio, Juan Eusebio, et al., December 28, 1956

    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. Eugenio’s 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 Eugenio’s petition and overruled his siblings’ objection.

    Issue: Whether venue had been properly laid in Rizal?

    Held: No. 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, since his
    heart was in bad condition. Even before he was able to transfer to the house he bought, Andres suffered
    a stroke and was forced to live in his son’s residence. The Court reiterated the well settled rule, that
    “domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a place merely for one own’s 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.

    Also, 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;
    that the CFI of Rizal had no authority, therefore, to appoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased,
    the venue having been laid improperly.

    You might also like