Rule 73 meaning of residence Eusebio vs.

Eusebio 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. Eugenios 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 Eugenios 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. Even before he was able to transfer to the house he bought, Andres suffered a stroke and was forced to live in his sons residence. It is well settled that domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a place merely for one owns 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. 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. Doctrine: Domicile once acquired is retained until a new domicile is gained. It is not changed by presence in a place for ones own health.

CUENCO v CA GR L-24742 October 26, 1973 Rule 73 meaning of residence Facts: Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila. He was survived by his widow and two minor sons, residing in Quezon City, and children of the first marriage, residing in Cebu. Lourdes, one of the children from the first marriage, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration with the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cebu, alleging that the senator died intestate in Manila but a resident of Cebu with properties in Cebu and Quezon City. The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Cayetano Cuenco, the second wife, filed a petition with CFI Rizal for the probate of the last will and testament, where she was named executrix. Rosa also filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but this court held in abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI Quezon shall have acted on the probate proceedings. Lourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon, on ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue, considering that CFI Cebu already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The opposition and motion to dismiss were denied. Upon appeal CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and

issued a writ of prohibition to CFI Quezon. ISSUEs:

Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition Whether or not CFI Quezon acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance and assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the probate proceedings in pursuance to CFI Cebu's order expressly consenting in deference to the precedence of probate over intestate proceedings

HELD: The Supreme Court found that CA erred in law in issuing the writ of prohibition against the Quezon City court from proceeding with the testate proceedings and annulling and setting aside all its orders and actions, particularly its admission to probate of the last will and testament of the deceased and appointing petitioner-widow as executrix thereof without bond pursuant to the deceased testator's wish.

On Venue and Jurisdiction Under Rule 73, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The residence of the decedent or the location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter but merely of venue. If this were otherwise, it would affect the prompt administration of justice. The court with whom the petition is first filed must also first take cognizance of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other courts. Garcia Fule v. CA Petitions for review of the decision of the CA FACTS:

On April 26, 1973 Amado G. Garcia died, 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. Preciosa B. Garcia, wife of deceased, and in behalf of their child: Agustina B. Garcia opposed, which was denied by CFI. Preciosa alleged that Fule was a creditor of the estate, and as a mere illegitimate sister of the deceased is not entitled to succeed from him. CA reversed and annulled the appointment of Fule.Preciosa became special administratrix upon a bond of P30k. ISSUES: 1. Whether venue had been properly laid in CFI Laguna? 2. W h a t d o e s t h e w o r d r e s i d e s i n R u l e 7 3 Mean?

HELD 1. 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 proceedings, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when want of jurisdiction appears on the record.Fules own submitted Death Certificate shows that the deceased resided in QC at the time of his death, therefore the venue of Laguna was improper .Venue is subject to waiver (RULE 4 SECTION 4), but Preciosa did not waive it, merely requested for alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse. However, venue is distinct from jurisdiction which is conferred by Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended to be with CFIs independently from the place of residence of the deceased.RULE 79SECTION 2, demands that the petition should show the existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought, and should allege all the necessary facts such asdeath, name, last residence, existence, situs of assets, intestacy, right of person whoseeks administration as next of kin, creditor or otherwise to be appointed 2.R U L E 7 3 SECTION 1. 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 at the CFI in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the CFI of any province in which he had 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.

Resides ex vi termini actual residence-Elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed.- S a m e m e a n i n g a s i n h a b i t a n t . - P o p u l a r sense the personal, actual or physical habitation of a p e r s o n , actual residence or place of abode- M u s t b e m o r e t h a n t e m p o r a r y Distinguished from legal residence or domicile requires bodily presence and an intention to make it ones domicile.