VICENTE URIARTE vs. CFI, et. al.G.R. Nos.

L-21938-39 May 29, 1970

Facts:Petitioner Vicente Uriarte filed a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Don
Juan Uriarte yGoite, a non-resident alien, in CFI Negros Oriental, alleging that he is an
acknowledged natural son of the decedent and his sole heir. Petitioner had previously initiated
an action before the same court for compulsory acknowledgment as natural son but there was
no final judgment yet. Private respondents, nephews of the decedent, filed an opposition
alleging that the decedent had left a will in Spain. Later, the same respondents filed a petition
for probate in CFI Manila using the alleged last will of the decedent, and then filed a motion to
dismiss the special proceedings in CFI Negros Oriental. The CFI Manila allowed the petition
for probate, and the CFI Negros dismissed the intestate proceeding. Petitioner then filed a
motion for reconsideration in CFI Negros which was denied. He also filed an omnibus motion
in CFI Manila asking for the dismissal of the probate proceeding on the ground that it was the
CFI Negros that took first cognizance of the case. Said motion was denied by CFI Manila.
Hence this petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion of the two courts
CFI Manila and Negros Oriental.

Issues:1.Whether or not the dismissal of the special proceedings in CFI Negros was proper;
and2. Whether or not CFI Manila has jurisdiction to probate the alleged will.

Held:On the first issue, it was proper that the intestate proceeding in Negros CFI be
discontinued because of the fact that the decedent had left a will. It is well-settled that testacy
is favored over intestacy, and thatany intestate proceeding may be terminated at any time
when it is discovered that the deceased had left a will. However, the proper thing the private
respondents should have done was to file the petition for probate in CFI Negros which was
already hearingthe intestate proceeding. The issue now is improper venue, not jurisdiction.
Unfortunately for petitioner, he is now guilty of laches for failing to timely object to the filing of
the petition for probate in CFI Manila. It is settled that questions of venue may be waived when
not timely objected to. Hence, the CFI Manila may continue with the probate case, without
prejudice to petitioner's successful action for his compulsory recognition as heir.Petition for
certiorari was denied.

Cuenco vs. CA
on 7:00 AM in Case Digests, Remedial Law 0
G.R. No. L-24742, October 26, 1973

The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts
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, 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.

ISSUEs:

Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition

Whether or not CFI Quezon 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:

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.