G.R. No. L-8409: In the matter of the Intestate of the deceased Andres Eusebio.

Eugenio Eusebio
vs. Amanda Eusebio, Virginia Eusebio, Juan Eusebio, et al., December 28, 1956

Facts:

Petitioner Eugenio Eusebio filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for his appointment as
administrator of the estate of his father, Andres Eusebio. He alleged that his father, who died on
November 28, 1952, resided in Quezon City. Eugenio’s siblings (Amanda, Virginia, Juan, Delfin, Vicente
and Carlos), stating that they are illegitimate children of Andres, opposed the petition and alleged that
Andres was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. They prayed that the case be dismissed upon the
ground that venue had been improperly laid.
           
The CFI of Rizal granted Eugenio’s petition and overruled his siblings’ objection.

Issue: Whether venue had been properly laid in Rizal?

Held: No. Don Andres Eusebio up to October 29, 1952, was and had always been domiciled in San
Fernando, Pampanga. He only bought a house and lot at 889-A Espana Extension, Quezon City because
his son, Dr. Jesus Eusebio, who treated him, resided at No. 41 P. Florentino St., Quezon City, since his
heart was in bad condition. Even before he was able to transfer to the house he bought, Andres suffered
a stroke and was forced to live in his son’s residence. The Court reiterated the well settled rule, that
“domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a place merely for one own’s health” even if coupled
with “knowledge that one will never again be able, on account of illness, to return home. Having resided
for over seventy years in Pampanga, the presumption is that Andres retained such domicile.

Also, Andres had no intention of staying in Quezon City permanently. There is no direct evidence of such
intent – Andres did not manifest his desire to live in Quezon City indefinitely; Eugenio did not testify
thereon; and Dr. Jesus Eusebio was not presented to testify on the matter. Andres did not part with, or
alienate, his house in San Fernando, Pampanga. Some of his children remained in that municipality. In
the deed of sale of his house at 889 – A Espana Ext., Andres gave San Fernando, Pampanga, as his
residence. The marriage contract signed by Andres when he was married in articulo mortis to Concepcion
Villanueva two days prior to his death stated that his residence is San Fernando, Pampanga.

The requisites for a change of domicile include (1) capacity to choose and freedom of choice, (2) physical
presence at the place chosen, (3) intention to stay therein permanently. Although Andres complied with
the first two requisites, there is no change of domicile because the third requisite is absent. 

Anent the contention that appellants submitted themselves to the authority of the CFI of Rizal because
they introduced evidence on the residence of the decedent, it must be noted that appellants specifically
made of record that they were NOT submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, except for the
purpose only of assailing the same.

In sum, the Court found that Andres was, at the time of his death, domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga;
that the CFI of Rizal had no authority, therefore, to appoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased,
the venue having been laid improperly.