Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rosa Cayetano Cuenco Vs CA (C4)
Rosa Cayetano Cuenco Vs CA (C4)
L-24742
October 26, 1973
NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of respondent
Court of Appeals
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
(widow), filed a petition with CFI Rizal (Quezon City) 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 the said court held in abeyance resolution over the opposition
until CFI Quezon City shall have acted on the probate proceedings. CFI Cebu, in effect
deferred to the probate proceedings in the Quezon City court. Lourdes filed an opposition
and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon City, 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. Lourdes filed special civil
action of certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction with respondent CA. CA
favored Lourdes holding that CFI Cebu had first acquired jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition against Quezon City court
ordering it to refrain from proceeding with the testate proceedings. 2.
Whether or not CFI Quezon City 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: 1.
Yes. 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. 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. Conversely,
such court, may upon learning that a petition for probate of the decedent's last will
has been presented in another court where the decedent obviously had his conjugal
domicile and resided with his surviving widow and their minor children, and that the
allegation of the intestate petition before it stating that the decedent died intestate may be
actually false, may decline to take cognizance of the petition and hold the petition
before it in abeyance, and instead defer to the second court which has before it the
petition for probate of the decedent's alleged last will. Implicit in the Cebu court's
order was that if the will was duly admitted to probate, by the Quezon City court, then it
would definitely decline to take cognizance of Lourdes' intestate petition which would
thereby be shown to be false and improper, and leave the exercise of jurisdiction to the
Quezon City court, to the exclusion of all other courts. 2.
No. Under the facts, the Cebu court could not be held to have acted without jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of jurisdiction in declining to take cognizance of the intestate petition
and deferring to the Quezon City court. Necessarily, neither could the Quezon City court
be deemed to have acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and acting on the
probate petition since 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 undisputably had at least equal and
coordinate jurisdiction over the estate.
NOTE (additional info):