PATRIA ESUERTE v COURT OF APPEALS (GR l-53485)

Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction filed by the respondent Tan. The
case started when Tan, Junior resident physician of a hospital in Bacolod City shouted and humiliated the
petitioner who is also the head nurse at the same hospital. The incident was reported by the petitioner to
the chief doctor through a letter which was also supported by a witness who is also a petitioner herein.
The respondent was asked to explain, but instead of doing so, it filed a complaint for damages against
petitioners in Cebu City. Esuerte and Jayme filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
improper venue and for being premature for failure of Tan to exhaust administrative remedies which was
however denied by the RTC and was also denied by CA. the petitioners herein contend that Tan should
have filed the case in Bacolod City and not in Cebu City because at the time of the filing of the action, the
latter was residing in Bacolod City.

Issue: Whether or not the case was filed in the proper venue.

Held:

The Rules of Court provides that in personal actions, may be commenced and tried where the defendants
or any of the defendants reside or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at
the election of the plaintiff. The Court said that the election belongs to the plaintiff but not to her caprice
because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. The rule on venue, like other procedural rules, are
designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice or the impartial and evenhanded
determination of every action and proceeding (Sy v. Tyson Enterprises Inc., 19 SCRA 367). The option of
the plaintiff in personal actions cognizable by the Regional Trial Court is either the place where the
defendant resides or may be found or the place where the plaintiff resides. If plaintiff opts for the latter, he
is limited to that place. The court explained that “resides” is not the same with “domicile”, the latter being
a fixed permanent residence while “resides” is the actual place where the person is currently staying
whether temporary or permanent. And as the rules provide, the case should be filed where the plaintiff
resides, and not domiciled or where the plaintiff intends to stay but as to where he is at the moment.

JOSE BARITUA and EDGAR BITANCOR vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NICOLAS
NACARIO and VICTORIA RONDA NACARIO
183 SCRA 565, March 22, 1990
Digested by: ARCISO, Diane Gale B.

FACTS:
Bienvenido Nacario was driving a tricycle with a passenger when he was hit with a bus driven by
Edgar Bitancor and owned by Jose Baritua. Bienvenido and his passenger died and the tricycle was
damaged.
There was an extra-judicial settlement negotiation wherein Beienvenido’s estranged wife, Alicia,
with whom he has a child, received P18, 500. With that, she executed a “Release of Claim” discharging
Bitancor, Baritua, and the bus insurer from all actions, claims, and demands arising from the accident.
She also executed an affidavit of desistance manifesting her lack of interest in instituting any case, civil or
criminal, against them.
After a year and ten months from the date of accident, the parents of Bienvenido filed a complaint
for damages against Bitancor and Baritua. They alleged that they were the ones who spent for their son’s
funeral and loaned to him the purchase price of the damaged tricycle. Claiming that it is them who
suffered damages, they shall be indemnified for their son’s death.

ISSUE:
 Whether the spouse was entitled to receive the petitioner’s payment.

HELD:
Yes. Under Article 1240 of the Civil Code, payment shall be made to the person in whose favor
the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
Certainly, Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in interest referred to by law as the
persons authorized to receive payment.
Further, Articles 887 and 985 of the Civil Code provide that the parents of the deceased succeed
only when the person dies without a legitimate descendant. Since it has been established that Bienvenido
was married to Alicia and that they begot a child, the parents are not successors-in-interest of
Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs. Even if Alicia had been estranged from Bienvenido, mere
estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the
deceased spouse.
Neither could the parents, as alleged creditors of Bienvenido, seek relief and compensation from
the petitioners. Such are mere money claims against the estate of their deceased son, which had been
released by the agreement of the extra-judicial settlement concluded with Alicia, the victim's widow and
heir, as well as the natural guardian of their child, her co-heir.

DANGWA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. (DANGWA BUS COMPANY), and JAMES G.

GAYOT, petitioners,
vs.
HON. MALCOLM G. SARMIENTO, Judge, Court of First Instance of Pampanga, and LAWRENCE
HELLER, respondents.

Facts:

On December 30, 1963, at Twin Peaks, Kennon Road, Tuba, Banquet Mountain Province, Dangwa bus
was driven by James G. Gayot collided with Lawrence Heller who was then riding on his motorcycle. In
the result of the collision, private respondent, Heller, sustained serious physical injuries, namely, a closed
fracture of the left femur and a compound fracture of the left tibia, and his motorcycle was totally wrecked.
Thereafter, he was confined at the USAF Hospital, Clark Air Base, Angeles, Pampanga. Thus,
respondent, file a civil case for damages at Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch I, San
Fernando and ruled in his favor.

Private respondent is an American citizen, an Airman First Class of the United States Air Force, and
presently assigned and stationed at Clark Air Base Pampanga, Philippines; while the defendant James G.
Gayot is a Filipino and a resident of Engineer's Hill, Baguio City and the other defendant Dangwa Bus
Company with business address at Trinidad Valley, Banquet Mountain Province.

Issue:

Is residence synonymous to domicile in the law governing venue of actions of Rule 4 of the Rules of
Court?

Ruling:

Rule 4 of Rules of Court Sec. 2(b) Personal actions — All other actions may be commenced and tried
where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the
plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.'
In Koh v. Court of Appeals, It is fundamental in the law governing venue of actions (Rule 4 of the Rules of
Court) that the situs for bringing real and personal civil actions are fixed by the rules to attain the greatest
convenience possible to the parties litigants by taking into consideration the exit in accessibility to them of
the courts of justice. It is likewise undeniable that the term domicile is not exactly synonymous in legal
contemplation with the term residence, for it is an established principle in Conflict of Laws
that domicile refers to the relatively ore permanent abode of a person while residence applies to a
temporary stay of a person in a given place. In fact this distinction is very well emphasized in those cases
where the Domiciliary Theory must necessarily supplant the Nationality Theory in cases involving
stateless persons.

In case of Uytengsu vs. republic,There is a difference between domicile and residence. Residence is
used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary: domicile denotes a fixed permanent
residence to which when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one
place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the
intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for one and the same purpose
at any time, but he may have numerous places of residence. His place of residence generally is his place
of domicile, but is not any means, necessarily so since no length of residence without intention of
remaining will constitute domicile.

Respondent court having found that private respondent Lawrence Heller had his actual residence at Clark
Air Base, Angeles Pampanga, at the time he filed his personal action against the petitioners, it did not,
therefore, gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss the case.