VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE vs. CA, PRECIOSA B.

GARCIA and AGUSTINA B. GARCIA, 74 SCRA

189 (1976) (SpecPro 2016)
Posted onJUNE 29, 2016
FACTS: Virginia G. Fule (illegitimate sister) filed with the CFI of Laguna a petition
for letters of administration alleging “that on April 26, 1973, Amado G. Garcia, a
property owner of Calamba, Laguna, died intestate in the City of Manila, leaving real
estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna, and in other places, within the
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.” At the same time, she moved ex parte for her
appointment as special administratix over the estate. Judge Malvar granted the
motion.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa B. Garcia, the surviving spouse of
the

deceased, contending that

1) The decedent “resided” in QC for 3 months before his death as shown by his death
certificate and therefore have an improper venue.

2) The CFI of Calamba lacks jurisdiction over the petition.

CFI denied the motion.

CA reversed and affirmed making Preciosa the administratix.

 
Thus, Fule elevated the matter to the SC on appeal by certiorari.

ISSUES:

a.) Are venue and jurisdiction the same? How can it be determined in the present
case?

b.) What does the word “resides” in Revised Rules of Court Rule 73 Section 1 Mean?

c.) Who is entitled as special administratix of the estate?

Held:

1. No, jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case base on
the merits or the substance of the facts. It is a substantive aspect of the trial
proceeding. It is granted by law or by the constitution and cannot be waived or
stipulated.
On the other hand, Rule 4 of Rules of Court define venue as the proper court which
has jurisdiction over the area wherein real property involved or a portion thereof is
situated. Venue is the location of the court with jurisdiction. It is more on convenience
purposes. It’s more on procedural aspect of the case. In some cases it may be waived
or stipulated by the parties.
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: “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.
1. “Resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of
abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this
popular sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not
legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as
an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that
place and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. No particular length of
time of residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than
temporary.
 

1. In the present case, SC ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased
should be the venue of the court. Amado G. Garcia was in Quezon City, and
not at Calamba, Laguna base on his death certificate. A death certificate is
admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at the time of his death.
 

Withal, the conclusion becomes imperative that the venue for Virginia C. Fule’s
petition for letters of administration was improperly laid in the Court of First Instance
of Calamba, Laguna. Therefore Preciosa B. Garcia was granted as a special
administratix.