OLARITA, CRISTINA SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

LAW 3-E FIRST STUDY GUIDE - VENUE AND JURISDICTION

ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS
APOLONIA BANAYAD FRIANELA, vs. SERVILLANO BANAYAD, JR.
G.R. No. 169700 July 30, 2009

PARTIES:

 APOLONIA BANAYAD FRIANELA – Petitioner / devisee

 SERVILLANO BANAYAD, JR – Respondent

PETITION FILED IN COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Petition for Allowance of Holographic Will

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 At the time the petition for the allowance of Moises’s holographic will was instituted, the then
Sections 19 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 were in force, thus—

SECTION 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
xxxx
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00);

VENUE OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Pursuant to Rule 73, Section 1, residence of the decedent at the time of his death is
determinative
of the venue of the proceeding. In this case, the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines and
residing at 2237 P. Burgos St., Pasay City at the time of his death, hence, the venue of the Court
of Origin is in Pasay City.

DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 The September 27, 1989 holographic will revoked the November 18, 1985 will, allowing the
former, and appointing respondent as administrator of Moises’s estate.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

 The Court finds it unnecessary to discuss and resolve the other issues raised in the petition.
Since the RTC has no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the
decision rendered, are null and void. Sp. Proc. No. 3664-P before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasay City is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DID THE COURT OF ORIGIN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION?

 NO. The RTC of Pasay City had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
OLARITA, CRISTINA SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
LAW 3-E FIRST STUDY GUIDE - VENUE AND JURISDICTION
ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS

 The jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the
time of the institution of the action unless such statute provides for a retroactive application
thereof. Jurisdiction is moreover determined by the allegations or averments in the complaint or
petition.

WAS THE VENUE PROPER?

 NO. In this case, at the time the petition for the allowance of Moises’s holographic will was
instituted, the then Sections 19 and 3314 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 12915 were in force. The
applicable law, therefore, confers jurisdiction on the RTC or the MTCs over probate proceedings
depending on the gross value of the estate, which value must be alleged in the complaint or
petition to be filed. However, nowhere in the petition is there a statement of the gross value of
Moises’s estate. Thus, from a reading of the original petition filed, it cannot be determined
which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings. The RTC therefore
committed gross error when it had perfunctorily assumed jurisdiction despite the fact that the
initiatory pleading filed before it did not call for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The RTC should
have, at the outset, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
OLARITA, CRISTINA SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
LAW 3-E FIRST STUDY GUIDE - VENUE AND JURISDICTION
ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS

CUENCO vs. COURT OF APPELAS

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

PARTIES:

 ROSA CAYETANO CUENCO – Petitioner

 Manuel Cuenco, Lourdes Cuenco, Concepcion Cuenco Manguera, Carmen Cuenco, Consuelo
Cuenco Reyes and Teresita Cuenco Gonzales – Respendent

PETITION FILED IN COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Petition for Probate of Will (Special Proceeding No. Q-7898)

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Section 19 of B. P. 129 as amended by R. A. 7691 provides:

Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxx
[4] In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross
value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

VENUE OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Court of first instance of Rizal (Quezon City)

DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 The Quezon City court denied the motion to dismiss, giving as a principal reason the
"precedence of probate proceeding over an intestate proceeding." The said court further found
in said order that the residence of the late senator at the time of his death was at No. 69 Pi y
Margal, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

 The appellate court 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 deceased's last will and testament and
appointing petitioner-widow as executrix thereof without bond pursuant to the deceased
testator's express wish.

 Venue was properly assumed by and transferred to the Quezon City court and that it is the
interest of justice and in avoidance of needless delay that the Quezon City court's exercise of
OLARITA, CRISTINA SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
LAW 3-E FIRST STUDY GUIDE - VENUE AND JURISDICTION
ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS
jurisdiction over the testate estate of the decedent (with the due deference and consent of the
Cebu court) and its admission to probate of his last will and testament and appointment of
petitioner-widow as administratrix without bond in pursuance of the decedent's express will and
all its orders and actions taken in the testate proceedings before it be approved and authorized
rather than to annul all such proceedings regularly had and to repeat and duplicate the same
proceedings before the Cebu court only to revert once more to the Quezon City court should the
Cebu court find that indeed and in fact, as already determined by the Quezon City court on the
strength of incontrovertible documentary evidence of record, Quezon City was the conjugal
residence of the decedent.

DID THE COURT OF ORIGIN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION?

 YES. under Rule 73, section 1, the Cebu court must first take cognizance over the estate of the
decedent and must exercise jurisdiction to exclude all other courts, which the Cebu court
declined to do. Furthermore, as is undisputed, said rule only lays down a rule of venue and the
Quezon City court indisputably had at least equal and coordinate jurisdiction over the estate.

 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 should be left now, by the same rule of venue of said Rule 73, to exercise jurisdiction to
the exclusion of all other courts.

 Under the facts of the case and where respondents submitted to the Quezon City court their
opposition to probate of the will, but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing despite due
notice, the Quezon City court cannot be declared, to have acted without jurisdiction in admitting
to probate the decedent's will and appointing petitioner-widow as executrix thereof in
accordance with the testator's testamentary disposition.

WAS THE VENUE PROPER?

 YES. The Rule precisely and deliberately 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. 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 should be left now, by the same rule of venue of said Rule 73, to exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts." Venue was properly assumed by and transferred
to the Quezon City court.
OLARITA, CRISTINA SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
LAW 3-E FIRST STUDY GUIDE - VENUE AND JURISDICTION
ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS

SAN LUIS vs. SAN LUIS

G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007

PARTIES:

 EDGAR SAN LUIS – Petitioner

 FELICIDAD SAN LUIS - Respondent

PETITION FILED IN COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Petition for letters of administration

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Section 19 of B. P. 129 as amended by R. A. 7691 provides:

Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxx
[4] In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such
gross value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

VENUE OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Alabang, Muntinlupa

DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 The Court ruled that respondent, as widow of the decedent, possessed the legal standing to file
the petition and that venue was properly laid

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

 We find that Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for purposes of fixing the venue
of the settlement of his estate. Consequently, the subject petition for letters of administration
was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court which has territorial jurisdiction over Alabang,
Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on December 17, 1993. At that time, Muntinlupa was
still a municipality and the branches of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial
Region which had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa were then seated in Makati City as per
Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 3. Thus, the subject petition was validly filed before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.

DID THE COURT OF ORIGIN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION?

OLARITA, CRISTINA SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
LAW 3-E FIRST STUDY GUIDE - VENUE AND JURISDICTION
ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS
 YES. The subject petition for letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court
which has territorial jurisdiction over Alabang, Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on
December 17, 1993. At that time, Muntinlupa was still a municipality and the branches of the
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region which had territorial jurisdiction over
Muntinlupa were then seated in Makati City as per Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 3.
Thus, the subject petition was validly filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.

WAS THE VENUE PROPER?

 YES. Under Section 1, 39 Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration
of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province "in which he
resides at the time of his death." In the instant case, while petitioners established that Felicisimo
was domiciled in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent proved that he also maintained a residence in
Alabang, Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his death. Respondent submitted in evidence
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 5, 1983 showing that the deceased purchased the
aforesaid property. She also presented billing statements from the Philippine Heart Center and
Chinese General Hospital for the period August to December 1992 indicating the address of
Felicisimo at "100 San Juanico, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa." Respondent also presented proof of
membership of the deceased in the Ayala Alabang Village Association  and Ayala Country Club,
Inc., letter-envelopes from 1988 to 1990 sent by the deceased’s children to him at his Alabang
address, and the deceased’s calling cards stating that his home/city address is at "100 San
Juanico, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa" while his office/provincial address is in "Provincial
Capitol, Sta. Cruz, Laguna."

 From the foregoing, we find that Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for purposes
of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate.
OLARITA, CRISTINA SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
LAW 3-E FIRST STUDY GUIDE - VENUE AND JURISDICTION
ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS

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

PARTIES:

 VICENTE URIARTE - Petitioner

 Juan Uriarte Zamacona, Higinio Uriarte, and the Courts of First Instance of Negros Occidental
and of Manila, Branch IV - Respondents

PETITION FILED IN COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Petition for the settlement of the estate

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Under the Judiciary Act of 1948 [Section 44, paragraph (e)], Courts of First Instance have original
exclusive jurisdiction over "all matters of probate," that is, over special proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of deceased persons — whether they died testate or intestate.

VENUE OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Under the Judiciary Act of 1948 [Section 44, paragraph (e)], Courts of First Instance have original
exclusive jurisdiction over "all matters of probate," that is, over special proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of deceased persons — whether they died testate or intestate. While
their jurisdiction over such subject matter is beyond question, the matter of venue, or the
particular Court of First Instance where the special proceeding should be commenced, is
regulated by former Rule 75, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, now Section 1, Rule 73 of the
Revised Rules of Court, which provides that the estate of a decedent inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, shall be in the court of first
instance in the province in which he resided at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of
a foreign country, the court of first instance of any province in which he had estate. Accordingly,
when the estate to be settled is that of a non-resident alien — like the deceased Juan Uriarte y
Goite — the Courts of First Instance in provinces where the deceased left any property have
concurrent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proper special proceeding for the settlement of
his estate.

DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

 Negros Court sustained Juan Uriarte Zamacona's motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1)
that, as the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite had left a last will, there was no legal basis to proceed
with said intestate proceedings, and (2) that petitioner Vicente Uriarte had no legal personality
and interest to initiate said intestate proceedings, he not being an acknowledged natural son of
the decedent and dismissed the Special Proceeding No. 6344 pending before it.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

OLARITA, CRISTINA SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
LAW 3-E FIRST STUDY GUIDE - VENUE AND JURISDICTION
ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE PROCEEDINGS
 The Court denied the writs prayed for and, as a result, the petition for certiorari filed in G.R. No.
L-21938, as well as the supplemental petition for mandamus docketed as G.R. No. L-21939, are
dismissed. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is set aside.

DID THE COURT OF ORIGIN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION?

 YES. Under the Judiciary Act of 1948 [Section 44, paragraph (e)], Courts of First Instance have
original exclusive jurisdiction over "all matters of probate," that is, over special proceedings for
the settlement of the estate of deceased persons — whether they died testate or intestate.

WAS THE VENUE PROPER?

 YES. The will should have been submitted to the Negros Court for probate, either in a separate
special proceeding or in an appropriate motion for said purpose filed in the already pending
Special Proceeding No. 6344.

 But the fact is that instead of the aforesaid will being presented for probate to the Negros Court,
Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed the petition for the purpose with the Manila Court. We cannot
accept petitioner's contention in this regard that the latter court had no jurisdiction to consider
said petition, albeit we say that it was not the proper venue therefor.

 It is well settled in this jurisdiction that wrong venue is merely a waiveable procedural defect,
and, in the light of the circumstances obtaining in the instant case, we are of the opinion, and so
hold, that petitioner has waived the right to raise such objection or is precluded from doing so
by laches. It is enough to consider in this connection that petitioner knew of the existence of a
will executed by Juan Uriarte y Goite since December 19, 1961 when Higinio Uriarte filed his
opposition to the initial petition filed in Special Proceeding No. 6344; that petitioner likewise
was served with notice of the existence (presence) of the alleged last will in the Philippines and
of the filing of the petition for its probate with the Manila Court since August 28, 1962 when
Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed a motion for the dismissal of Special Proceeding No. 6344.