John Francis A.

Villanueva
Third Year Day Class
Special Procedure
Re: Settlement of Estate of the Deceased Person

Apolonia Banayad Frianela vs Servillano Banayad

Parties:

Apolonia Banayad Frianela - Petitioner

Servillano Banayad - Respondent

Moises Banayad - Testator

Petition filed in the Court of Origin

- Petition for the allowance of the November 18, 1985 holographic will of the
decedent.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

- It shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters of probate, both

testate and intestate, where the gross value of the testate exceeds twenty
thousand pesos.

Venue of the Court of Origin

- The venue of the case is in Pasay City

Decision of the Court of Origin

- The RTC rendered its decision declaring the September 27, 1989 holographic
will as having revoked the November 1989 will, allowing the former and
appointing respondent as administrator of Moses’ estate.
-
Decision of the Supreme Court

- The RTC committed gross error when it had perfunctorily assumed jurisdiction
despite the fact that the initiatory pleading filed before it did no call for the
exercise of its jurisdiction. The RTC should have, at the outset, dismissed the
case for the lack of jurisdiction.

Did the Court of Origin validly acquire jurisdiction?

- The court of origin did not validly acquire jurisdiction because the filing of the
petition is not proper by the fact that the initiatory pleading filed before it did not
call for the exercise of its jurisdiction.

Was the venue proper?

- The venue is proper because the filing of the petition is in the place where the
petitioner resides.

Edgar San Luis vs Felicidad San Luis

Parties:

Felicidad San Luis – Third Wife and the Respondent

Linda, Rodolfo, and Edgar – Petitioners

Petition filed in the Court of Origin

- A petition for administration for the dissolution of their conjugal partnership

assets and the settlements of Felicisimo’s estate.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

- The jurisdiction of the RTC shall only pertain to the place in which he resides at
the time of his death.

Venue of the Court of Origin

- The venue of the case in Makita City

Decision of the Court of Origin

- The trial court dismissed the petition for letters of administration. It held that, at
the time of his death, Felicisimo was the duly elected governor and a resident of
the Province of Laguna. Hence, the petition should have been filed in Sta. Cruz,
Laguna and not in Makati City.

Decision of the Supreme Court

- Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of
administration of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional Trial
Court of the province "in which he resides at the time of his death." For purposes
of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the "residence" of a person is his
personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode,
which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides
therein with continuity and consistency. Hence, it is possible that a person may
have his residence in one place and domicile in another. Thus, the subject
petition was validly filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.

Did the Court of Origin validly acquire jurisdiction?

- The court of origin validly acquire jurisdiction.

Was the venue proper?

- The venue is proper because for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of
Court, the "residence" of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation,
or actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal
residence or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and
consistency.  Hence, it is possible that a person may have his residence in one
place and domicile in another.
 Rosa Cayetano Cuenco vs Court of Appeals

Parties:

Lourdes Cuenco – respondent

Rosa Cayetano Cuenco – petitioner

Court of Appeals – respondent

Petition filed in the Court of Origin

-  a petition with the court of first instance of Rizal (Quezon City) for the probate of
the deceased's last will and testament and for the issuance of letters
testamentary in her favor, as the surviving widow and executrix in the said last
will and testament.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

- Under Rule 73 Section 1, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the
estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
courts.

Venue of the Court of Origin

- The venues of the case are in Cebu City and Quezon City.

Decision of the Court of Origin

- The Quezon City court denied the motion to dismiss, giving as a principal reason
the "precedence of probate proceeding over an intestate proceeding.

Decision of the Supreme Court

- 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 indisputably had at
least equal and coordinate jurisdiction over the estate.

Since the Quezon City court took cognizance over the probate petition before it

and assumed jurisdiction over the estate, with the consent and deference of the
Cebu court, the Quezon City court should be left now, by the same rule of venue
of said Rule 73, to exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.

Did the Court of Origin validly acquire jurisdiction?

- 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. 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

Was the venue proper?

- The venues are proper because Under Rule 73 Section 1, the court first taking
cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.

Vicente Uriarte vs Court of First Instance

Parties:

Vicente Uriarte – Petitioner

The Court of First Instance – Respondent

Higinio Uriarte – respondent

Juan Uriarte Zamacona – respondent

Petition filed in the Court of Origin

- a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Don Juan Uriarte y Goite
(Special Proceeding No. 6344) alleging therein, inter alia, that, as a natural son
of the latter, he was his sole heir, and that, during the lifetime of said decedent,
petitioner had instituted Civil Case No. 6142 in the same Court for his
compulsory acknowledgment as such natural son.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

- Under the Judiciary Act of 1948 [Section 44, paragraph (e)], Courts of First
Instance have original exclusive jurisdiction over "all matters of probate," that is,
over special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons —
whether they died testate or intestate.

Venue of the Court of Origin

- The venues of the Court of Origin are Negros and the Manila Courts.

Decision of the Court of Origin

-  The Negros Court sustained Juan Uriarte Zamacona's motion to dismiss and
dismissed the Special Proceeding No. 6344 pending before it. The Manila court
dismissed the intestate settlement in the Court of First Instance of Negros.

Decision of the Supreme Court

- The Supreme Court states on its dismissal regarding the intestate proceeding is
proper. In accordance with the jurisprudence on testate proceedings, it takes
precedence over the intestate proceedings. Therefore, any intestate proceedings
shall be subject to dismissal in order to take priority in testate proceedings.

Did the Court of Origin validly acquire jurisdiction?

- The Court of Origin validly acquire jurisdiction because under the Judiciary Act of
1948 Section 44, Courts of First Instance have original exclusive jurisdiction over
all matters of probate, that is, over special proceedings for the settlement of the
estate of deceased persons, whether they died testate or intestate.
Was the venue proper?

- The venues are proper because under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules
of Court, which provides that the estate of a decedent inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, shall be in the
court of first instance in the province in which he resided 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.