CUENCO vs CA

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

RULE 73 - VENUE AND PROCESS
Facts:
Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila on February 1964. He was survived by his widow and two
minor sons (Mariano Jesus, Jr. and Jesus Salvador), residing in Quezon City, and children of the first
marriage (Manuel Cuenco, Lourdes Cuenco, Concepcion Cuenco Manguera, Carmen Cuenco, Consuelo
Cuenco Reyes and Teresita Cuenco Gonzales), 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, filed a
petition with CFI Rizal 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 this court held in abeyance
resolution over the opposition until CFI Quezon shall have acted on the probate proceedings. Lourdes
filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon, 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. Upon appeal CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a
writ of prohibition to CFI Quezon.
Issue:
Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition.
Held:
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. On Venue and Jurisdiction 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. 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 order to
exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other courts.