1DE LA CERNA SPECPRO DIGESTS 2011 AMIN | CHA | JANZ | KRIZEL | VIEN
Eusebio v. Eusebio, et. al
Eugenio filed a petition with CFI Rizal (Quezon City) for appointment asadministrator of the estate of his deceased father, Andres. Illegitimate siblings of Eugenio, Amanda et al, opposed the petition contending that venue was improperly laid.CFI Pampanga, according to oppositors, is the correct venue since San Fernando was thetrue domicile of the deceased whose estate is being settled. CFI Rizal overruled the
opposition and granted Eugenio’s petition. On appeal, the SC reversed CFI Rizal –
venue,indeed, has been improperly laid! Following Rule 75, Sec. 1 (now Rule 73, Sec.1),
decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizens 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 xxx.
Although it is true that shortly before his death Andres bought a house in QC andbegan moving his belongings from San Fernando thereto, the SC found that there was no
clear showing of Andres’s intention to change domicile. The evidence weighed by the CFI
Rizal actually proved that Andres still considers San Fernando as his true domicile andthat he was moving to QC only for medical purposes without definite intention (
)to change the same. Moreover, there is a presumption in law
changes of domicile.In other words, there is a presumption in favor of the continuance of an existingdomicile. Therefore, the burden of proving a change of domicile lies on those who allegedthat a change has occurred. Failing this, and absent any evidence of intention/animus, it is to be presumed that the party has retained the last domicile known to have beenpossessed by him. This follows from the principle that a domicile acquired is retaineduntil another is gained.
Appeal from an order of CFI Rizal (Quezon City) granting Eugenio’s petition for
appointment as administrator of the estate of his deceased father Andres over theobjection of his illegitimate siblings, Amanda et al.
It is not disputed that up to Oct 29, 1952, Andres Eusebio was, and had always been,domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga, where he had his home, as well as someother properties
Inasmuch as his heart was in bad condition and his son, Dr. Jesus Eusebio, whotreated him resided at Quezon City, Andres bought a house and lot at latter City,located along España Extension.
While transferring his belongings to his new house, Andres suffered a stroke forwhich reason Dr. Eusebio took him to his (Dr. Eusebio's) residence, where Andresremained until he was brought to the UST Hospital sometime before Nov. 26, 1952
On the day of Nov. 26, Andres contracted marriage in
with hiscommon law wife, Concepcion Villanueva, in UST hospital. Two days later, Nov. 28,he died of "acute left ventricular failure secondary to hypertensive heart disease", at the age of 74 years. Consequently, he never stayed or even slept in the house he just bought at QC. The domicile of origin of Andres was San Fernando, Pampanga, wherehe resided for over seventy (70) years
100 Phil 593 (1956)
Almost a year later, on Nov 16, 1953, Eugenio, legitimate son of Andres, filed withthe CFI of Rizal a petition for his appointment as administrator of the estate of his
father, Andres. According to Eugenio’s petition, Andres was residing in the City of
Quezon at the time of his demise
Amanda, et al, objected to said petition, stating that they are illegitimate children of Andres and that the latter was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. They prayed,therefore, that the case be dismissed upon the ground that venue had beenimproperly filed
By an order, CFI Rizal overruled this objection and granted Eugenio
Hence, this appeal taken by Amanda et al. The appeal hinges on the
of theresidence (domicile) of Andres at the time of his death on Nov 28, 1952
Issue/s and Held:
WON venue was improperly laid with CFI Rizal -
Rule 75 (now Rule 73), section 1, of the Rules of Court, provides:
Where estate of deceased persons settled.
If the decedent is an inhabitant of thePhilippines at the time of his death, whether a citizens 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, and if he is aninhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which hehad estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of adecedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdictionassumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in anappeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appearson the record.
It is clear from the above Rule that the CFI having jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of a deceased RESIDENT of the Philippines (citizen or alien) is the one inthe province in which the decedent resides AT THE TIME OF DEATH
From the facts, although Andres bought a house in QC and started moving hisbelongings thereto, the presumption is that he retained his original domicile, and,hence, residence, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary. It is well-settled that "a domicile once acquired is retained until a new domicile is gained"
Under the circumstances of the case at bar, if Andres established another domicile, it must have been one of choice. The following are the conditions essential indetermining change of domicile: (1) capacity to choose and freedom of choice; (2)physical presence at the place chosen; and (3) intention to stay therein permanently
Admittedly, Andres was juridically capable of choosing a domicile and had been inQuezon City several days prior to his demise. Thus, the issue narrows down towhether he intended to stay in that place
the answer to this last
question is NO.
There is no direct evidence of such intent. Neither does Andres appear to havemanifested his wish to live indefinitely in QC. Eugenio, who took the witness stand,