3. GARCIA FULE v.

COURT OF APPEALS
No. L-40502. November 29, 1976. * VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE and HONORABLE SEVERO
A. MALVAR, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch VI, petitioners,
vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ** PRECIOSA B. GARCIA and AGUSTINA B
GARCIA, respondents.

No. L-42670. November 29, 1976. * VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE
ERNANI C. PAÑO, Presiding Judge of Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City,
Branch XVIII, and PRECIOSA B. GARCIA, respondents

MARTIN, J.:

FACTS:

On May 2, 1973, petitioner Virginia Fule is the illegitimate sister of the deceased
Amado Garcia who died intestate on April 26, 1973. She then filed with the CFI of
Laguna a petition for letters of administration on the grounds that Amado left real
estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna, and in other places, within the
jurisdiction of the said court. Also, she moved ex parte for her appointment as special
administratix over the estate. This motion was granted by then CFI of Laguna in
Calamba under Judge Malvar.

However, a motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa Garcia, the surviving
spouse of the deceased, contending that CFI Laguna has no jurisdiction over the case
as Amado resided in Quezon City three (3) months prior to his death as shown by his
death certificate and therefore, the venue was improperly laid. Moreover, there was no
notice of the petition for letters of administration that had been served upon all persons
interested in the estate. In line with this motion, Preciosa also moved for the removal of
Virginia Fule as special administratrix alleging that the latter is not a party in interest as
she is not entitled to inherit from the deceased Amado Garcia being a fullblooded sister
of Pablo Alcaide, an illegitimate son of Andrea Alcaide, with whom the deceased Amado
Garcia has no relation. At this point in time, the notice of hearing of the petition for
letters of administration filed by Virginia was published on May 17, 24, and 31, 1973, in
the Bayanihan, a weekly publication of general circulation in Southern Luzon. Virginia
was asserting in this case that Amado was elected as Constitutional Delegate for the
First District of Laguna and his last place of residence was at Calamba, Laguna and a
certain Carolina Carpio, not Preciosa, was the surviving spouse of Amado, and that
Carolina expressly renounced her preferential right to the administration of the estate in
favor of Virginia. During the trial, the presented death certificate of Amado indicates that
his residence at the time of his death was Quezon City.

CFI denied the MR filed by Preciosa and issued orders directing all persons
concerned to deliver to Virginia, as special administratrix, the following: 1) copy of the
statement of accounts and final liquidation of sugar pool, as well as to deliver to her the
corresponding amount due, from Calamba Sugar Planters Cooperative Marketing
Association, Inc.; 2) two motor vehicles presumably belonging to the estate and all
certificates of title in the name of Preciosa which were in the possession of the latter.

Acting in the special action for certiorari and/or prohibition and preliminary
injunction filed by Preciosa, the CA annulled the CFI decision and made the latter the
administratix. Thereafter, Preciosa filed a petition for letters of administration before the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City which was granted, making her the special
administratrix. The proceedings before the said court was suspended when Fule
elevated the matter to the SC on petition for certiorari.
 
ISSUE: Whether or not the proper venue for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
Amado Garcia is in Calamba, Laguna – NO

HELD:

1. The proper venue is the CFI of Rizal in QC.

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 nettled; 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.”
 The term “resides” in the above-mentioned rule connotes ex vi termini “actual
residence” as distinguished from “legal residence or domicile.” It is 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. 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. However, the residence must be more than temporary.

In this case, the last place of residence of the deceased Amado Garcia was at 11
Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna. This was
proven by the death certificate offered as evidence which, by the rules, is admissible to
prove the residence of the decedent at the time of his death.

2. Jurisdiction must be distinguished from venue.

Jurisdiction is conferred by law and 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. On the other hand, venue is the location of the court with
jurisdiction and pertains to procedural aspect of the case. Unlike venue, jurisdiction
cannot be waived or stipulated.

In this case, Preciosa Garcia did not necessarily waive her objection to the
jurisdiction or venue assumed by the Court of First of Calamba, Laguna, but availed of a
mere practical resort to alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse,
while insisting on the enforcement of the Rule fixing the proper venue of the
proceedings at the last residence of the decedent.

3. As to the appointment of special administratrix, Preciosa, as the surviving

spouse, is prima facie entitled to the appointment of special administratrix.

Preciosa as the surviving spouse was proven by the documents of a) Donation

Inter Vivos and b) Certificate of Candidacy where it was indicated that she is the spouse
of Amado.

It must be noted that the appointing court does not determine who are entitled to
share in the estate of the decedent but who is entitled to the administration. The issue
of heirship is one to be determined in the decree of distribution, and the findings of the
court on the relationship of the parties in the administration as to be the basis of
distribution.

In conclusion, the SC ruled that the venue in the instant case was properly
assumed by and transferred to Quezon City and that it is in the interest of justice and
avoidance of needless delay that the Quezon City court’s exercise of jurisdiction over
the settlement of the estate of the deceased Amado Garcia and the appointment of
special administratrix over the latter’s estate be approved and authorized and the Court
of First Instance of Laguna be disauthorized from continuing with the case and instead
be required to transfer all the records to QC Court.

The petitions are denied.