This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
- If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, 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. Sec. 2. Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage. - When the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either. Sec. 3. Process. - In the exercise of probate jurisdiction, Court of First Instance may issue warrants and processes necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses or to carry into effect their orders and judgments, and all other powers granted them by law. If a person does not perform an order of judgment rendered by a court in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction, it may issue a warrant for the apprehension and imprisonment of such person until he performs such order or judgment, or is released. Sec. 4. Presumption of death. - For purposes of settlement of his estate, a person shall be presumed dead if absent and unheard from for the periods fixed in the Civil Code. But if such person proves to be alive, he shall be entitled to the balance of his estate after payment of all his debts. The balance may be recovered by motion in the same proceeding. Rule 73 Eusebio vs Eusebio wherein the decedent was from San Fernando, Pampanga, suffering from a heart ailment, and purchased a house in QC to be nearer to his doctor, died and the Court held that the situs of the settlement proceedings was at his domicile he was in the process of transferring his personal belongings to his new QC house and died before he could move therein. REMEDY IF THE VENUE IS IMPROPERLY LAID General rule: Ordinary appeal, and not certiorari or mandamus. Exception: If want of jurisdiction appears on the record of the case. [Rule 73, Sec. 1; Eusebio v. Eusebio] Fule vs Garcia- Venue improperly laid On April 26, 1973 Amado G. Garcia died(former gov of calamba), he owned property in Calamba, Laguna. On May 2, 1973, Virginia G. Fule field with CFI Laguna a petition for letters of administration and ex parte appointment as special administratix over the estate. Motion was granted.
right of person who seeks administration as next of kin.) RULE 73 SECTION 1.(there was an allegation that the wife was Carolina Carpio) Preciosa B. 992. However. and in behalf of their child: Agustina B. his will shall be proved. which was denied by CFI. therefore the venue of Laguna was improper. but Preciosa did not waive it. or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. and should allege all the necessary facts such as death. demands that the petition should show the existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought. venue is distinct from “jurisdiction” which is conferred by Judiciary Act of 1948. Venue is subject to waiver (RULE 4 SECTION 4). Garcia. .” Fule’s own submitted Death Certificate shows that the deceased resided in QC at the time of his death.Same meaning as “inhabitant”. existence. and his estate settled at the CFI in the province in which he resides at the time of his death. last residence. in the original case. (Preciosa alleged that Fule was a creditor of the estate. situs of assets. Garcia opposed. and as a mere illegitimate sister of the deceased is not entitled to succeed from him1) CA reversed and annulled the appointment of Fule. shall not be contested in a suit or proceedings. Preciosa became special administratrix upon a bond of P30k. merely requested for alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse. And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country. jurisdiction b. 1 NCC Art. intestacy. name.) Who is entitled? HELD/RATIO: a. ISSUES: a. except in an appeal from that court. or of the location of his estate. The court 1st taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.Elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. “if the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death. nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. whether a citizen or an alien. as amended to be with CFIs independently from the place of residence of the deceased. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestado from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother.) Venue v.) What does the word “resides” in Revised Rules of Court Rule 73 Section 1 Mean? c. RULE 79 SECTION 2. b. wife of deceased. . the CFI of any province in which he had estate. creditor or otherwise to be appointed. so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent.) Resides – ex vi termini “actual residence” . or letters of administration granted. The jurisdiction assumed by a court.
In re: Fule. Rodolfo opposed claiming that their parents resided at Angeles. DISPOSITION: Fule’s petition DENIED. Ynares-Santiago NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Spouses Ignacio Jao Tayag and Andrea V. if not more. interest in administering the entire estate correctly than any other next of kin. et. alleging that his brother is dissipating the assets of the estate. Perico Jao instituted a petition for issuance of letters of administration with request for appointment of special administrator before RTC QC. had 2 sons: Rodolfo and Perico Jao.“xxx delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any cause (includes parties cannot agree among themselves) including an appeal of allowance of disallowance of a will. died and the Court held that the situs of the settlement proceedings was at his domicile. that their staying with him due to their medical treatments and hospitalization were transitory. CA May 29. JAO vs CA CASE # 3: JAO V. c. suffering from a heart ailment. (1956). and purchased a house in QC to be nearer to his doctor. Rodolfo cited Eusebio V. J. actual residence or place of abode Must be more than temporary Distinguished from “legal residence or domicile” – requires bodily presence and an intention to make it one’s domicile. Pampanga. but the preference of Preciosa is with sufficient reason – the widow would have the right of succession over a portion of the exclusive property of the decedent. it is not required that the administratrix be entitled to share in the estate of the decedent – only that one is entitled to the administration. 2002. Old rules basis ay: appeal of allowance of disallowance of a will. Eusebio. and differentiated between: . besides her share in the conjugal partnership. al. actual or physical habitation of a person. The New Rules RULE 80 SECTION 1 broadened the basis for appointment of special administrator (temporarily) to take possession and charge of the estates of the deceased until the questions causing the delay are decided and (regular) executors or administrators appointed. For such reason. she would have as such. the court may appoint a xxx” The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not is with the probate court. New: added . wherein the decedent was from San Fernando.- Popular sense – the personal. Jao. Pampanga. the paramount consideration is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the estate of the decedent. decedents.) Preciosa is prima facie entitled to the appointment of special administratrix.
or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. In Raymond V CA (1988) and Bejer V CA (1989). Here their parents lived with Rodolfo for 3-4 years before they died.RULE 4 SECTION 2. SC held that venue for ordinary civil actions and for special proceedings have one and the same meaning. because there. where he may be found. RTC designated J. Factual findings substantiated by evidence are conclusive and binding. but Rodolfo did not correct the entry in their mother’s death certificate either. Venue in Special Proceedings . DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. at the election of the plaintiff. . Clearly provides where the decedent resides at the time of his death.RULE 73 SECTION 1. Death Certificate entry by Rodolfo was that the spouses last resided with him in QC. The contention is non-sequitur. SC cited Garcia-Fule V.that domicile is where the records of the properties are kept and where most of the properties of the decedents are located. Venue of Personal Actions. Eusebio is not applicable in the case at bar. ISSUES: Where should the settlement proceedings be had? HELD: QC RATIO: RULE 73 SECTION 1. he was in the process of transferring his personal belongings to his new QC house and died before he could move therein. Carlos L. V. Death certificates are admissible in evidence and were properly considered and presumed to be correct by the court a quo. or in the case of a non-resident defendant. All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside. . CA AFFIRMED. CA as to the term “resides”. CA dismissed Rodolfo’s petition for certiorari. Plus Ignacio died a year before Andrea. Sundiam as special administrator of the estate.Venue in ordinary civil actions .
. I. Probate proceedings are purely statutory and their functions limited to the control of the property upon the death of its owner. p.-------is an extraneous matter in a testate or intestate proceedings. his Honor's ground being that the court exercising limited jurisdiction cannot entertain claims of this kind which should properly belong to a court general jurisdiction. ESTATE OF DE BORJA VS DE BORJA FACTS: settlement of estate of de borja Quintin was administrator of estate. crisanto de borja. particularly against Marcela de Borja who allegedly uttered derogatory remarks intended to cast dishonor to said administrator sometime in 1950 or 1951. 40 Off Gaz. No administrator need be assigned . PEREIRA V.. 72 Phil. Vol. CA J. The injection into the action of incidental questions entirely foreign in probate proceedings should not be encouraged for to do otherwise would run counter to the clear intention of the law. 567. June 20. Akel. (son of FRANCISCO) took over untilthe outbreak of war. is the ruling spirit of our probate law (Magabanua vs. Upon his death. The American Law of Administration.4. Estate not substantial Simple case. It was in the acknowledgment of its limited jurisdiction that the lower court dismissed the administrator's counterclaim for moral damages against the oppositors. for it was held that: The speedy settlement of the estate of deceased persons for the benefit of the creditors and those entitled to the residue by way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration have been paid. Summary Settlement Only RATIO: action for partition lang ang kelangan. — (2) whether a claim for moral damages may be entertained in a proceeding for the settlement of an estate. 1989 NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA FACTS: Andres de Guzman Pereira left only 2 heirs a) Wife of 10 months b) Sister • sister filed petition for issuance of administration in her favor • wife opposed: a) property 1: death benefits she is only beneficiary b) savings deposit: used for burial expenses c) only real property – house in Rizal ISSUES: Should there be judicial proceedings? HELD: No. 662-663). 514. and cannot extend to the adjudication of collateral questions (Woesmes. Crisanto de borja filed his accounts which accdg to the heirs was inadequate. Gancayco. Administrator filed a reply to said opposition containing z counterclaim for moral damages against all Issues: The issues. 1871).
the same should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator. Rule 77. Bulacan (1930-1963). Rodriguez was a resident of Parañaque. Rizal. As ruled in previous decisions. through counsel filed a petition for leave of court to allow them to examine the alleged will. Rizal. Rule 78. 1) . that court is entitled to assume jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. 1963. or in case he had left one. when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from the estate. even if no petition for its allowance was filed until later. that on March 11.. that detail would not imply that the Bulacan court lacked jurisdiction. GR: when a person dies leaving property. and issued the corresponding notices conformably to what is prescribed by section 3. Rodriguez's 33 years of residence as parish priest in Hagonoy. EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION: if they do not desire to resort for good reasons to an ordinary action for partition DISPOSITION: Letters of Administration issued by RTC to sister Rita Pereira Nagac are hereby revoked and the administration proceedings dismissed w/o prejudice to her right to commence an action for partition of the property left by decedent. aforementioned petitioners filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Fr. and consider that he retained throughout some animus revertendi to the place of his birth in Parañaque. but even if we do so. We can not disregard Fr. among other things. (Sec. RODRIGUEZ VS DE BORJA Apolinia and adelaida delivered to the clek of court of bulacan the purported last will and testament of fr Rodriguez. 1963 before the Court could act on the petition." and in the case at bar the Bulacan court did not have it because the decedent was domiciled in Rizal province. 9 Under this exception. should he fail to name an executor therein. have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will. in case the deceased left no will. 1963. because upon the will being deposited the court could. and died without leaving a will and praying that Maria Rodriguez be appointed as Special Administratrix of the estate The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan became vested upon the delivery thereto of the will of the late Father Rodriguez on March 4. Maria Rodriguez and Angela Rodriguez. the power to settle decedents' estates is conferred by law upon all courts of first instance. section 3 of revised Rule 76 (old Rule 77) speaks of a will being delivered to "the Court having jurisdiction. that on March 12. of the Revised Rules of Court (Section 3. since the same enjoins that: The Court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. motu proprio. of the old Rules): But. petitioners object. Exception: Section 1 of Rule 74. they may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or applying for the appointment of an administrator. that Fr. Rodriguez alleging. the same was withdrawn. and the domicile of the testator only affects the venue but not the jurisdiction of the Court The estate proceedings having been initiated in the Bulacan Court of First Instance ahead of any other. even if it were a case of wrong venue by express provisions of Rule 73 (old Rule 75) of the Rules of Court. Rule 76. in the order established in Section 6.
order of court was upheld. Court ruled: “It is hornbook doctrine that in a special proceeding for the probate of a will. disposing of his properties in favor of his widow. Probate court—hearig. adjudicating the estate of Eusebio Capili among the testamentary heirs with the exception of Hermogena Reyes. claiming 1/2 of the properties mentioned in the will of the deceased Eusebio Capili on the theory that they belonged not to the latter alone but to the conjugal partnership of the spouses. 2 other reasons: bad faith. Mejia presiding. However. Of them only one could be of proper venue. donation by hermogena of her share to eusebio e probate court. His will was admitted to probate on October 9. the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot pass upon with finality. Probate of will must first pass upon its extrinsic validity. his cousins executor filed a project of partition in the testate proceeding in accordance with the terms of the will.” -issue: 5 parcels of land. yet the rule grants precedence to that Court whose jurisdiction is first invoked. issued an order declaring the donation void without making any specific finding as to its juridical nature. 2 marriages. 5 alleged to have been already adjudicated to heirs of forst marriage.This disposition presupposes that two or more courts have been asked to take cognizance of the settlement of the estate. Intermediate Appellate Court. The first died on July 27. without taking venue into account.will was declared intrinsically void. the Honorable M. - Lourdes Not the legal wife. court disapproved both projects of partition and directed the executor to file another issue: petitioners-appellants contend that the appellate court erred in not declaring that the probate court. succession is only subsidiary or subordinate to the testate. the rules of intestacy apply as correctly held by the trial court. 1958 and a testate proceeding for the settlement of his estate was instituted in the Court of the Fist Instance of Bulacan. Estate of deceased to be distributed according to the laws of intestacy. having limited and special jurisdiction. whose share was alloted to her collateral relatives relatives filed an opposition to the executor's project of partition and submitted a counter-project of partition of their own. Thus. the court had ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsically valid but the intrinsic provisions thereof were void. In Jimenez vs. motion to reinstate as executrix of estate of deceased denied as not a legal heir Held: petition w/o merit. had generally no power to adjudicate title and erred in applying the exception to the rule held: submitted to jurisdiction of the court by submitting project of partition Dorotheo vs CA. . since intestacy only takes place in the absence of a valid operative will Bernardo vs CA: Eusebio Capili and Hermogena Reyes were husband and wife. 1958. RTC is directed to proceed . In this case. Final and exec decision or order can no longer be disturbed. This pronouncement no doubt applies with equal force to an intestate proceeding x x x.
1980. but such determination is provisional. the Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto. We had occasion to make this observation in Lachenal v. the surviving spouse is considered a third person as regards the estate of the parent-in-law. 1980. Salas. Leoncio. September 30. Spouses then sold lots to Carmen. 1980. Lope L. 1976. July 2. 71 SCRA 262. 4 to Wit: We hold that the title to the fishing boat should be determined in Civil Case No. 266). (Lachenal vs. As a general rule.. JUnquera vs Borromeo trial court rendered decision denying the probate of the will and declaring itself w/ojurisdiction to pass ipon yje question of ownership of the 13 lots tht cebu arcade left This Court. JVA was entered between Moslared and Drepin but the latter died before it can be implemented. not conclusive. vs. held: "X X X As a rule. Only asset of estate consists of 3 parcels of land woth 80 hectares and another parcel with 81 hectares. the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. Salas. for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties.. is nevertheless a third person with respect to his estate. Holographic will listed 33 creditors. COURT OF APPEALS. 1980." Baybayan v Aquino . 1) whether or not the respondent judge (Judge R. Offer to buy lands include that of GM mgt owned by MOSLARES. the question as to title to property should not be passed upon in the estate or intestate proceeding. although married to his daughter or compulsory heir. L-42257. That question should be ventilated in a separate action. the decedent's son-in-law. JR. Estate of Valero vs CA Carmen. 3597 (not in the intestate proceeding) because it affects the lessee thereof. June 14. Honrado) acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to exclude the parcels of land involved from the testate proceedings of the Drepin estate. in PASTOR.adopted child of the wife. Flora and Rosa children by first marriage Jose Valero donated lots to Carmen but the same was not registered. and (2) whether or not the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the impugned orders dated April 15. Thus. Inventory of properties and collation PIO BARRETO REALTY Proceedings for the settlement of the estate of DREPIN. who. and October 20.Indeed. and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title. .
rights and assets left by the decedent. Intestate Estate of Pedro Fragante. become vested and charged with his rights and obligations which survive after his demise. SAN LUIS VS SAN LUIS Settlement of estate former gv pf laguna. instead of the heirs directly. Estate Continues Personality. maintain and operate an ice plant in San Juan. It has been held that the estate or the mass of property. 776). Contracted 3 marriages during his lifetime . – For certain purposes. after the death of a person. his personality is deemed to continue in his estate. 80 Phil. rights and obligations which survive after death have to be exercised and fulfilled only by the estate of the deceased (Limjoco vs. Rizal.Limjoco vs intestate estate: FACTS: The Public Service Commission rendered a certificate of public convenience to the estate of the deceased Pedro Fragante to install. Under the present legal system. Petitioner alleged that the granting of the certificate to the estate of Pedro Fragante who is now dead was a contravention of law.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.