Rule 73 Venue and Process 2.
On this date, he contracted marriage in articulo mortis with his common
8409 – Eusebio vs Eusebio
Concepcion, J
Illegitimate children of the deceased question the jurisdiction of the CFI Rizal, on the
ground that the same is not the domicile of the decease but at San Fernando, Pampanga.
This contention won.
ISSUE with HOLDING
DOCTRINE
There is a presumption ifo the domicile of origin, that one has retained such domicile, and,
hence, residence, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, for it is well-settled
that "a domicile once acquired is retained until a new domicile is gained".
How to establish a domicile of choice?
3 requisites: (1) capacity to choose and freedom of choice; (2) physical presence at the
place chosen; and (3) intention to stay therein permanently.
Rule 73(then Rule 75)
Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the 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, in the Court of First Instance in the
province in which he resides 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. The court
first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed 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 an appeal from that court, in the original
case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Eugenio Eusebio- petitioner for the settlement, CFI Rizal, appellee
Andres Eusebio- deceased
Amanda plus 5 other illegitimate children – oppositors, illegitimate children, appellants
FACTS
1. Eugenio filed with the CFI Rizal, a petition for his appointment as administrator of
the estate of his father, Andres residing in the City of Quezon.
2. Amanda et al objected to said petition, stating that they are illegitimate children of
the deceased and that the latter was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga, and
praying, therefore, that the case be dismissed for improper venue
1. CFI Rizal denied the MTD
3. It is not disputed that up to October 29, 1952, Andres Eusebio was, and had
always been, domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga, where he had his home,
properties and were some of his children also lived with him
4. His heart was in bad condition and his son, Dr. Jesus Eusebio, who treated him,
resided at Quezon City, on October 29, 1952, Andres Eusebio bought a house
and lot at 889-A España Extention, in said City (Exhibit 2- deed of sale of ).
1. While transferring the decedent had a stroke,Dr. Eusebio took him to
his residence, where the decedent remained until he was brought to the
UST Hospital, sometime before November 26, 1952.
law wife, Concepcion Villanueva, in said hospital.
3. 2 days later, he died therein of "acute left ventricular failure secondary
to hypertensive heart disease", at the age 74 (Exhibit A).
4. Consequently, he never stayed or even slept in said house at España
Extention.
1. W/n CFI Rizal had jurisdiction on the settlement of the estate of the deceased-
NO
1. SC: the domicile of origin of the decedent was San Fernando,
Pampanga, where he resided for over seventy (70) years, the
presumption is that he retained such domicile, and, hence, residence,
in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, for it is well-settled
that "a domicile once acquired is retained until a new domicile is
gained"
2. Here, if the deceased established another domicile, it must have been
one of choice, for which the following conditions are essential, namely:
(1) capacity to choose and freedom of choice; (2) physical presence at
the place chosen; and (3) intention to stay therein permanently.
1. Admittedly, the decedent was juridically capable of choosing a
domicile and had been in Quezon City several days prior to
his demise. Thus, the issue narrows down to whether he
intended to stay in that place permanently.
2. W/n the deceased intended to stay permanently in QC? No, the preseumption ifo
the domicile of origin is not overturned by evidence
1. SC:There is no direct evidence of such intent. Neither does the
decedent appears to have manifested his wish to live indefinitely in said
city.
1. Eugenio did not testify on his father’s intent
2. Moreover, said appellee did not introduce the testimony of his
legitimate full brother and son of the decedent, Dr. Jesus
Eusebio, upon whose advice, presumably, the house and lot
at No. 889-A España Extention was purchased, and who,
therefore, might have cast some light on his (decedent's)
purpose in buying said property.
2. SC: CFI Rizal is wrong in ruling that the decedent's intent to stay
permanently in Quezon City is "manifest" from the acquisition of said
property and the transfer of his belongings thereto.
1. The house and lot in Espana Extension were bought by the
decedent because he had been advised to do so "due to his
illness. It is well settled that "domicile is not commonly
changed by presence in a place merely for one's own health",
even if coupled with "knowledge that one will never again be
able, on account of illness, to return home."
2. Decedent did alienate, his house in San Fernando,
Pampanga. Moreover, some of his children, who used to live
with him in San Fernando, Pampanga, remained .
3. In Exhibit 2- deed of sae pf Espana property, by virtue of
decedent gave San Fernando, Pampanga, as his residence.
This fact was also indicated in his residence certificates.
Lastly, the marriage contract Exhibit 1, signed by the
deceased when he was married, in articulo mortis, two (2)
1
 days prior to his demise, stated that his residence is San
Fernando, Pampanga.
1. One of his sons was witness to the wedding, this
son should’ve corrected the indicated residence if it
was false.
3. What will happen if this case be dismissed in the CFI QC (at first the case
referred to the CFI Rizal, judging from the case isa lang tong tinutukoy nila)on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction or improper venue?"
1. SC: The oppositors in the CFI Rizal had filed a petition with the CFI
Pampang but the same was dismissed upon opposition by Eugenio on
the ground that the there was a pending case in CFI Rizal.
2. SC: Although said order is now final, it cannot affect the outcome of the
case at bar. Said order did not pass upon the question of domicile or
residence of the decedent.
3. Moreover, in granting the court first taking cognizance of the case
exclusive jurisdiction over the same, the ROC evidently refers to cases
triable before two or more courts with concurrent jurisdiction. It could
not possibly have intended to deprive a competent court of the authority
vested therein by law, merely because a similar case had been
previously filed before a court to which jurisdiction is denied by law, for
the same would then be defeated by the will of one of the parties. More
specially, said provision refers mainly to non-residents.
4. SC: if proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased
resident are instituted in two or more courts, and the question of venue
is raised before the same, the court in which the first case was filed
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide said issue, and we so held in
the case of Taciana Vda. De Borja vs. Tan.Should it be decided, in the
proceedings before the said court, that venue had been improperly laid,
the case pending therein should be dismissed and the corresponding
proceedings may, thereafter, be initiated in the proper court.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
RTC decision reversed, ruling ifo appellants

DIGESTER: Nikki M.