G.R. No.

159507 April 19, 2006

ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
AMERICAN EXRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., !"#$or IAN T. %IS& !"# DOMINIC MASCRINAS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before the Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by ni!eto ". Saludo, #r. see$in% to reverse and set aside
the De!ision
&
dated 'ay ((, ())* of the Court of ppeals in C+".R. SP No. ,-..*. /he assailed de!ision dire!ted the
Re%ional /rial Court 0R/C1 of 'aasin City, Southern 2eyte, Bran!h (. thereof, to va!ate and set aside its Orders dated
Septe3ber &), ())& and #anuary (, ())( in Civil Case No. R+*&4(, and en5oined the presidin% 5ud%e
(
thereof fro3
!ondu!tin% further pro!eedin%s in said !ase, e6!ept to dis3iss the !o3plaint filed therewith on %round of i3proper venue.
/he petition also see$s to reverse and set aside the appellate !ourt7s Resolution dated u%ust &8, ())* denyin% the
3otion for re!onsideration of the assailed de!ision.
/he fa!tual and pro!edural ante!edents are as follows9
ni!eto ". Saludo, #r. filed a !o3plaint for da3a%es a%ainst the 3eri!an E6press International, In!. 0'E:1 and;or its
offi!ers Ian /. <ish, =i!e+President and Country 'ana%er, and Do3ini! 'as!rinas, >ead of Operations, with the R/C of
'aasin City, Southern 2eyte. /he !ase was raffled to Bran!h (. of the said !ourt.
/he !o3plaint alle%ed, inter alia, that plaintiff 0herein petitioner Saludo1 ?is a <ilipino !iti@en, of le%al a%e, and a 3e3ber of
the >ouse of Representatives and a resident of I!hon, 'a!rohon, Southern 2eyte, Philippines.? On the other hand,
defendant 0herein respondent 'E:, In!.1 ?is a !orporation doin% business in the Philippines and en%a%ed in providin%
!redit and other !redit fa!ilities and allied servi!es with offi!e address at 8th floor, CE Buildin%, Rada Street, 2e%aspi
=illa%e, 'a$ati City.? /he other defendants 0herein respondents <ish and 'as!rinas1 are offi!ers of respondent 'E:,
and 3ay be served with su33ons and other !ourt pro!esses at their offi!e address.
/he !o3plaint7s !ause of a!tion ste33ed fro3 the alle%ed wron%ful dishonor of petitioner Saludo7s 'E: !redit !ard and
the supple3entary !ard issued to his dau%hter. /he first dishonor happened when petitioner Saludo7s dau%hter used her
supple3entary !redit !ard to pay her pur!hases in the Anited States so3e ti3e in pril ())). /he se!ond dishonor
o!!urred when petitioner Saludo used his prin!ipal !redit !ard to pay his a!!ount at the >otel O$awa in /o$yo, #apan
while he was there with other dele%ates fro3 the Philippines to attend the Con%ressional Re!o%nition in honor of 'r.
>iroshi /ana$a.
/he dishonor of these 'E: !redit !ards were alle%edly un5ustified as they resulted fro3 respondents7 unilateral a!t of
suspendin% petitioner Saludo7s a!!ount for his failure to pay its balan!e !overin% the period of 'ar!h ())). Petitioner
Saludo denied havin% re!eived the !orrespondin% state3ent of a!!ount. <urther, he was alle%edly wron%fully !har%ed for
late pay3ent in #une ())). SubseBuently, his !redit !ard and its supple3entary !ards were !an!eled by respondents on
#uly (), ())).
Petitioner Saludo !lai3ed that he suffered %reat in!onvenien!e, wounded feelin%s, 3ental an%uish, e3barrass3ent,
hu3iliation and bes3ir!hed politi!al and professional standin% as a result of respondents7 a!ts whi!h were !o33itted in
%ross and evident bad faith, and in wanton, re!$less and oppressive 3anner. >e thus prayed that respondents be
ad5ud%ed to pay hi3, 5ointly and severally, a!tual, 3oral and e6e3plary da3a%es, and attorney7s fees.
In their answer, respondents spe!ifi!ally denied the alle%ations in the !o3plaint. <urther, they raised the affir3ative
defenses of la!$ of !ause of a!tion and i3proper venue. On the latter, respondents averred that the !o3plaint should be
dis3issed on the %round that venue was i3properly laid be!ause none of the parties was a resident of 2eyte. /hey
alle%ed that respondents were not residents of Southern 2eyte. 'oreover, notwithstandin% the !lai3 in his !o3plaint,
petitioner Saludo was not alle%edly a resident thereof as eviden!ed by the fa!t that his !o33unity ta6 !ertifi!ate, whi!h
was presented when he e6e!uted the !o3plaint7s verifi!ation and !ertifi!ation of non+foru3 shoppin%, was issued at
Pasay City. /o buttress their !ontention, respondents pointed out that petitioner Saludo7s !o3plaint was prepared in
Pasay City and si%ned by a lawyer of the said !ity. Respondents prayed for the dis3issal of the !o3plaint a Buo.
/hereafter, respondents filed an Opposition to E6+Parte 'otion 0to Set Case for Pre+/rial1 and 'otion for Preli3inary
>earin% 0on ffir3ative Defense of I3proper =enue1 to whi!h petitioner Saludo filed his Co33ents and;or Ob5e!tions to
the ffir3ative Defense of I3proper =enue. >e asserted that any alle%ation refutin% his residen!y in Southern 2eyte was
baseless and unfounded !onsiderin% that he was the !on%ress3an of the lone distri!t thereof at the ti3e of the filin% of his
!o3plaint. >e ur%ed the !ourt a Buo to ta$e 5udi!ial noti!e of this parti!ular fa!t. s a 3e3ber of Con%ress, he possessed
all the Bualifi!ations pres!ribed by the Constitution in!ludin% that of bein% a resident of his distri!t. >e was also a 3e3ber
of the Inte%rated Bar of the Philippines+Southern 2eyte Chapter, and has been su!h ever sin!e his ad3ission to the Bar.
>is !o33unity ta6 !ertifi!ate was issued at Pasay City only be!ause he has an offi!e thereat and the offi!e 3essen%er
obtained the sa3e in the said !ity. In any event, the !o33unity ta6 !ertifi!ate is not deter3inative of one7s residen!e.
In the Order dated Septe3ber &), ())&, the !ourt a Buo denied the affir3ative defenses interposed by respondents. It
found the alle%ations of the !o3plaint suffi!ient to !onstitute a !ause of a!tion a%ainst respondents. /he !ourt a Buo
li$ewise denied respondents7 affir3ative defense that venue was i3properly laid. It reasoned, thus9
6 6 6 C/Dhe fa!t alone that the plaintiff at the ti3e he filed the !o3plaint was and still is, the in!u3bent Con%ress3an of the
2one Distri!t of Southern 2eyte with residen!e at I!hon, 'a!rohon, Southern 2eyte, is enou%h to dispell any and all
doubts about his a!tual residen!e. s a hi%h+ran$in% %overn3ent offi!ial of the provin!e, his residen!e there !an be ta$en
5udi!ial noti!e of. s su!h his personal, a!tual and physi!al habitation or his a!tual residen!e or pla!e of abode !an never
be in so3e other pla!e but in I!hon, 'a!rohon, Southern 2eyte. It is !orre!tly stated by the plaintiff, !itin% the !ase of
Core v. Core, &)) Phil. *(& that, ?residen!e, for purposes of fi6in% venue of an a!tion, is synony3ous with do3i!ile. /his
is defined as the per3anent ho3e, the pla!e to whi!h, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return,
and depends on the fa!ts and !ir!u3stan!es, in the sense that they dis!lose intent. person !an have but one do3i!ile
at a ti3e. 3an !an have but one do3i!ile for one and the sa3e purpose at any ti3e, but he 3ay have nu3erous pla!es
of residen!e. =enue !ould be at pla!e of his residen!e. 0'asa v. 'ison, ()) SCR 4&. C&--&D1
*
Respondents sou%ht the re!onsideration thereof but the !ourt a Buo denied the sa3e in the Order dated #anuary (, ())(.
/hey then filed with the appellate !ourt a petition for !ertiorari and prohibition alle%in% %rave abuse of dis!retion on the
part of the presidin% 5ud%e of the !ourt a Buo in issuin% the Septe3ber &), ())& and #anuary (, ())( Orders. Apon
respondents7 postin% of a bond, the appellate !ourt issued on 'ar!h &8, ())( a te3porary restrainin% order whi!h
en5oined the presidin% 5ud%e of the !ourt a Buo fro3 !ondu!tin% further pro!eedin%s in Civil Case No. R+*&4(.
On 'ay ((, ())*, the appellate !ourt rendered the assailed de!ision %rantin% respondents7 petition for !ertiorari as it
found that venue was i3properly laid. It dire!ted the !ourt a Buo to va!ate and set aside its Orders dated Septe3ber &),
())& and #anuary (, ())(, and en5oined the presidin% 5ud%e thereof fro3 further pro!eedin% in the !ase, e6!ept to
dis3iss the !o3plaint.
/he appellate !ourt e6plained that the a!tion filed by petitioner Saludo a%ainst respondents is %overned by Se!tion (,
Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. /he said rule on venue of personal a!tions basi!ally provides that personal a!tions 3ay be
!o33en!ed and tried where plaintiff or any of the prin!ipal plaintiffs resides, or where defendant or any of the prin!ipal
defendants resides, at the ele!tion of plaintiff.
=enue was i3properly laid in the !ourt a Buo, a!!ordin% to the appellate !ourt, be!ause not one of the parties was a
resident of Southern 2eyte. Spe!ifi!ally, it de!lared that petitioner Saludo was not a resident thereof. /he appellate !ourt
pronoun!ed that, for purposes of venue, the residen!e of a person is his personal, a!tual or physi!al habitation, or his
a!tual residen!e or pla!e of abode, whi!h 3ay not ne!essarily be his le%al residen!e or do3i!ile provided he resides
therein with !ontinuity and !onsisten!y.
8
/he appellate !ourt Buoted the followin% dis!ussion in Eoh v. Court of ppeals
.
where the Court distin%uished the ter3s
?residen!e? and ?do3i!ile? in this wise9
6 6 6 C/Dhe ter3 do3i!ile is not e6a!tly synony3ous in le%al !onte3plation with the ter3 residen!e, for it is CanD
established prin!iple in Confli!t of 2aws that do3i!ile refers to the relatively 3ore per3anent abode of a person while
residen!e applies to a te3porary stay of a person in a %iven pla!e. In fa!t, this distin!tion is very well e3phasi@ed in those
!ases where the Do3i!iliary /heory 3ust ne!essarily supplant the Nationality /heory in !ases involvin% stateless
persons.
6 6 6 6
?/here is a differen!e between do3i!ile and residen!e. Residen!e is used to indi!ate a pla!e of abode, whether
per3anent or te3poraryF do3i!ile denotes a fi6ed per3anent residen!e to whi!h when absent, one has the intention of
returnin%. 3an 3ay have a residen!e in one pla!e and a do3i!ile in another. Residen!e is not do3i!ile, but do3i!ile is
residen!e !oupled with intention to re3ain for an unli3ited ti3e. 3an !an have but one do3i!ile for one and the sa3e
purpose at any ti3e, but he 3ay have nu3erous pla!es of residen!e. >is pla!e of residen!e %enerally is his pla!e of
do3i!ile, but is not by any 3eans, ne!essarily so sin!e no len%th of residen!e without intention of re3ainin% will !onstitute
do3i!ile.?
,
0Itali!i@ed for e3phasis1
In holdin% that petitioner Saludo is not a resident of 'aasin City, Southern 2eyte, the appellate !ourt referred to his
!o33unity ta6 !ertifi!ate, as indi!ated in his !o3plaint7s verifi!ation and !ertifi!ation of non+foru3 shoppin%, whi!h was
issued at Pasay City. Si3ilarly, it referred to the sa3e !o33unity ta6 !ertifi!ate, as indi!ated in his !o3plaint for
deportation filed a%ainst respondents <ish and 'as!rinas. Ander Republi! !t No. 4&,),
4
the !o33unity ta6 !ertifi!ate
shall be paid in the pla!e of residen!e of the individual, or in the pla!e where the prin!ipal offi!e of the 5uridi!al entity is
lo!ated.
G
It also pointed out that petitioner Saludo7s law offi!e, whi!h was also representin% hi3 in the present !ase, is in
Pasay City. /he fore%oin% !ir!u3stan!es were !onsidered by the appellate !ourt as 5udi!ial ad3issions of petitioner
Saludo whi!h are !on!lusive upon hi3 and no lon%er reBuired proof.
/he appellate !ourt !hided the !ourt a Buo for statin% that as in!u3bent !on%ress3an of the lone distri!t of Southern
2eyte, 5udi!ial noti!e !ould be ta$en of the fa!t of petitioner Saludo7s residen!e thereat. No eviden!e had yet been
addu!ed that petitioner Saludo was then the !on%ress3an of Southern 2eyte and a!tual resident of I!hon, 'a!rohon of
the said provin!e.
/he appellate !ourt held that, based on his !o3plaint, petitioner Saludo was a!tually residin% in Pasay City. It faulted hi3
for filin% his !o3plaint with the !ourt a Buo when the said venue is in!onvenient to the parties to the !ase. It opined that
under the rules, the possible !hoi!es of venue are Pasay City or 'a$ati City, or any pla!e in the National Capital #udi!ial
Re%ion, at the option of petitioner Saludo.
It stressed that while the !hoi!e of venue is %iven to plaintiff, said !hoi!e is not left to his !apri!e and !annot deprive a
defendant of the ri%hts !onferred upon hi3 by the Rules of Court.
-
<urther, funda3ental in the law %overnin% venue of
a!tions that the situs for brin%in% real and personal !ivil a!tions is fi6ed by the rules to attain the %reatest possible
!onvenien!e to the party liti%ants by ta$in% into !onsideration the 3a6i3u3 a!!essibility to the3 + i.e., to both plaintiff and
defendant, not only to one or the other + of the !ourts of 5usti!e.
&)
/he appellate !ourt !on!luded that the !ourt a Buo should have %iven due !ourse to respondents7 affir3ative defense of
i3proper venue in order to avoid any suspi!ion that petitioner Saludo7s 3otive in filin% his !o3plaint with the !ourt a Buo
was only to ve6 and unduly in!onvenien!e respondents or even to wield influen!e in the out!o3e of the !ase, petitioner
Saludo bein% a powerful and influential fi%ure in the said provin!e. /he latter !ir!u3stan!e !ould be re%arded as a ?spe!ie
of foru3 shoppin%? a$in to that in Investors <inan!e Corp. v. Ebarle
&&
where the Court 3entioned that the filin% of the !ivil
a!tion before the !ourt in Pa%adian City ?was a spe!ie of foru3 shoppin%? !onsiderin% that plaintiff therein was an
influential person in the lo!ality.
/he de!retal portion of the assailed De!ision dated 'ay ((, ())* of the appellate !ourt reads9
APON />E =IEH HE /EE O< />IS CSE, />AS, the !hallen%ed orders 3ust be, as they hereby are, =C/ED and
SE/ SIDE and the respondent 5ud%e, or any one a!tin% in his pla!e or stead, is instru!ted and en5oined to desist fro3
further pro!eedin% in the !ase, e6!ept to dis3iss it. /he te3porary restrainin% order earlier issued is hereby !onverted into
a writ of preli3inary in5un!tion, upon the postin% this ti3e by petitioners Cherein respondentsD, within five 0.1 days fro3
re!eipt of this de!ision, of a bond in the a3ount of <ive 'illion Pesos 0P.,))),))).))1, to answer for all da3a%es that
private respondent Cherein petitionerD 3ay sustain by reason of the issuan!e of su!h in5un!tion should the Court finally
de!ide that petitioners are not entitled thereto. Private respondent, if he so 3inded, 3ay refile his !ase for da3a%es
before the Re%ional /rial Court of 'a$ati City or Pasay City, or any of the Re%ional /rial Courts of the National Capital
#udi!ial Re%ion. Hithout !osts.
SO ORDERED.
&(
Petitioner Saludo sou%ht the re!onsideration of the said de!ision but the appellate !ourt, in the Resolution dated u%ust
&8, ())*, denied his 3otion for re!onsideration. >en!e, he filed the instant petition for review with the Court alle%in% that9
/he Court of ppeals, 0Spe!ial <ourth Division1, in pro3ul%atin% the afore+3entioned De!ision and Resolution, has
de!ided a Buestion of substan!e in a way probably not in a!!ord with law or with appli!able de!isions of this >onorable
Court.
0a1 the Court of ppeals erred in not ta$in% 5udi!ial noti!e of the undisputed fa!t that herein petitioner is the
in!u3bent !on%ress3an of the lone distri!t of Southern 2eyte and as su!h, he is a residen!e 0si!1 of said distri!tF
0b1 the Court of ppeals erred in dis3issin% the !o3plaint on the basis of i3proper venue due to the alle%ed
5udi!ial ad3ission of herein petitionerF
0!1 the Court of ppeals in dis3issin% the !o3plaint i%nored appli!able de!isions of this >onorable CourtF
and1avvphil.net
0d1 the Court of ppeals erred in de!idin% that herein petitioner violated the rules on venue, and even spe!ulated
that herein petitioner7s 3otive in filin% the !o3plaint in 'aasin City was only to ve6 the respondents.
&*
In %ist, the sole substantive issue for the Court7s resolution is whether the appellate !ourt !o33itted reversible error in
holdin% that venue was i3properly laid in the !ourt a Buo in Civil Case No. R+*&4( be!ause not one of the parties,
in!ludin% petitioner Saludo, as plaintiff therein, was a resident of Southern 2eyte at the ti3e of filin% of the !o3plaint.
/he petition is 3eritorious.
Petitioner Saludo7s !o3plaint for da3a%es a%ainst respondents before the !ourt a Buo is a personal a!tion. s su!h, it is
%overned by Se!tion (, Rule 8 of the Rules of Courts whi!h reads9
SEC. (. =enue of personal a!tions. + ll other a!tions 3ay be !o33en!ed and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
prin!ipal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the prin!ipal defendants resides, or in the !ase of a non+
resident defendant where he 3ay be found, at the ele!tion of the plaintiff.
/he !hoi!e of venue for personal a!tions !o%ni@able by the R/C is %iven to plaintiff but not to plaintiff7s !apri!e be!ause
the 3atter is re%ulated by the Rules of Court.
&8
/he rule on venue, li$e other pro!edural rules, is desi%ned to insure a 5ust
and orderly ad3inistration of 5usti!e, or the i3partial and evenhanded deter3ination of every a!tion and pro!eedin%.
&.
/he
option of plaintiff in personal a!tions !o%ni@able by the R/C is either the pla!e where defendant resides or 3ay be found,
or the pla!e where plaintiff resides. If plaintiff opts for the latter, he is li3ited to that pla!e.
&,
<ollowin% this rule, petitioner Saludo, as plaintiff, had opted to file his !o3plaint with the !ourt a Buo whi!h is in 'aasin
City, Southern 2eyte. >e alle%ed in his !o3plaint that he was a 3e3ber of the >ouse of Representatives and a resident
of I!hon, 'a!rohon, Southern 2eyte to !o3ply with the residen!y reBuire3ent of the rule.
>owever, the appellate !ourt, adoptin% respondents7 theory, 3ade the findin% that petitioner Saludo was not a resident of
Southern 2eyte at the ti3e of the filin% of his !o3plaint. It hin%ed the said findin% 3ainly on the fa!t that petitioner Saludo7s
!o33unity ta6 !ertifi!ate, indi!ated in his !o3plaint7s verifi!ation and !ertifi!ation of non+foru3 shoppin%, was issued at
Pasay City. /hat his law offi!e is in Pasay City was also ta$en by the appellate !ourt as ne%atin% petitioner Saludo7s !lai3
of residen!e in Southern 2eyte.
/he appellate !ourt !o33itted reversible error in findin% that petitioner Saludo was not a resident of Southern 2eyte at the
ti3e of the filin% of his !o3plaint, and !onseBuently holdin% that venue was i3properly laid in the !ourt a Buo. In Dan%wa
/ransportation Co., In!. v. Sar3iento,
&4
the Court had the o!!asion to e6plain at len%th the 3eanin% of the ter3 ?resides?
for purposes of venue, thus9
In Eoh v. Court of ppeals, we e6plained that the ter3 ?resides? as e3ployed in the rule on venue on personal a!tions
filed with the !ourts of first instan!e 3eans the pla!e of abode, whether per3anent or te3porary, of the plaintiff or the
defendant, as distin%uished fro3 ?do3i!ile? whi!h denotes a fi6ed per3anent residen!e to whi!h, when absent, one has
the intention of returnin%.
?It is funda3ental in the law %overnin% venue of a!tions 0Rule 8 of the Rules of Court1 that the situs for brin%in% real and
personal !ivil a!tions are fi6ed by the rules to attain the %reatest !onvenien!e possible to the parties+liti%ants by ta$in% into
!onsideration the 3a6i3u3 a!!essibility to the3 of the !ourts of 5usti!e. It is, li$ewise, undeniable that the ter3 do3i!ile is
not e6a!tly synony3ous in le%al !onte3plation with the ter3 residen!e, for it is an established prin!iple in Confli!t of 2aws
that do3i!ile refers to the relatively 3ore per3anent abode of a person while residen!e applies to a te3porary stay of a
person in a %iven pla!e. In fa!t, this distin!tion is very well e3phasi@ed in those !ases where the Do3i!iliary /heory 3ust
ne!essarily supplant the Nationality /heory in !ases involvin% stateless persons.
?/his Court held in the !ase of Ayten%su v. Republi!, .) O.". 84G&, O!tober, &-.8, reversin% its previous stand in 2arena
v. <errer, ,& Phil. *,, and Nuval v. "uray, .( Phil. ,8., that +
7/here is a differen!e between do3i!ile and residen!e. Residen!e is used to indi!ate a pla!e of abode, whether
per3anent or te3poraryF do3i!ile denotes a fi6ed per3anent residen!e to whi!h when absent, one has the intention of
returnin%. 3an 3ay have a residen!e in one pla!e and a do3i!ile in another. Residen!e is not do3i!ile, but do3i!ile is
residen!e !oupled with the intention to re3ain for an unli3ited ti3e. 3an !an have but one do3i!ile for one and the
sa3e purpose at any ti3e, but he 3ay have nu3erous pla!es of residen!e. >is pla!e of residen!e %enerally is his pla!e
of do3i!ile, but is not by any 3eans, ne!essarily so sin!e no len%th of residen!e without intention of re3ainin% will
!onstitute do3i!ile.7 0Itali!i@ed for e3phasis1
?He note that the law on venue in Courts of <irst Instan!e 0Se!tion (, of Rule 8, Rules of Court1 in referrin% to the parties
utili@es the words 7resides or 3ay be found,7 and not 7is do3i!iled,7 thus9
7Se!. (0b1 Personal a!tions + ll other a!tions 3ay be !o33en!ed and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants
resides or 3ay be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the ele!tion of the plaintiff.7 0Itali!i@ed for
e3phasis1
?pplyin% the fore%oin% observation to the present !ase, He are fully !onvin!ed that private respondent Colo3a7s
protestations of do3i!ile in San Ni!olas, Ilo!os Norte, based on his 3anifested intention to return there after the
retire3ent of his wife fro3 %overn3ent servi!e to 5ustify his brin%in% of an a!tion for da3a%es a%ainst petitioner in the
C.<.I. of Ilo!os Norte, is entirely of no 3o3ent sin!e what is of para3ount i3portan!e is where he a!tually resided or
where he 3ay be found at the ti3e he brou%ht the a!tion, to !o3ply substantially with the reBuire3ents of Se!. (0b1 of
Rule 8, Rules of Court, on venue of personal a!tions.? 0Eoh v. Court of ppeals, supra, pp. *)8+*)..1
/he sa3e !onstru!tion of the word ?resides? as used in Se!tion &, Rule 4*, of the Revised Rules of Court, was enun!iated
in <ule v. Court of ppeals, et al. 0".R. No. 2+8).)(1 and <ule v. >on. Ernani C. PaIo, et al. 0".R. No. 2+8(,4)1, de!ided
on Nove3ber (-, &-4,. /hus, this Court, in the afore!ited !ases, stated9
?(. But, the far+ran%in% Buestion is this9 Hhat does the ter3 7resides7 3eanJ Does it refer to the a!tual residen!e or
do3i!ile of the de!edent at the ti3e of his deathJ He lay down the do!trinal rule that the ter3 7resides7 !onnotes e6 vi
ter3ini 7a!tual residen!e7 as distin%uished fro3 7le%al residen!e or do3i!ile.7 /his ter3 7resides,7 li$e the ter3s 7residin%7
and 7residen!e7 is elasti! and should be interpreted in the li%ht of the ob5e!t or purposes of the statute or rule in whi!h it is
e3ployed. In the appli!ation of venue statutes and rules + Se!tion &, Rule 4* of the Revised Rules of Court is of su!h
nature + residen!e rather than do3i!ile is the si%nifi!ant fa!tor. Even where the statute uses the word 7do3i!ile7 still it is
!onstrued as 3eanin% residen!e and not do3i!ile in the te!hni!al sense. So3e !ases 3a$e a distin!tion between the
ter3s 7residen!e7 and 7do3i!ile7 but as %enerally used in statutes fi6in% venue, the ter3s are synony3ous, and !onvey the
sa3e 3eanin% as the ter3 7inhabitant.7 In other words, 7resides7 should be viewed or understood in its popular sense,
3eanin%, the personal, a!tual or physi!al habitation of a person, a!tual residen!e or pla!e of abode. It si%nifies physi!al
presen!e in a pla!e and a!tual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the ter3 3eans 3erely residen!e, that is, personal
residen!e, not le%al residen!e or do3i!ile. Residen!e si3ply reBuires bodily presen!e as an inhabitant in a %iven pla!e,
while do3i!ile reBuires bodily presen!e in that pla!e and also an intention to 3a$e it one7s do3i!ile. No parti!ular len%th
of ti3e of residen!e is reBuired thou%hF however, the residen!e 3ust be 3ore than te3porary.?
&G
/here is no dispute that petitioner Saludo was the !on%ress3an or the representative of the lone distri!t of Southern 2eyte
at the ti3e of filin% of his !o3plaint with the !ourt a Buo. Even the appellate !ourt ad3its this fa!t as it states that ?it 3ay
be !on!eded that private respondent ever so often travels to 'aasin City, Southern 2eyte, be!ause he is its
representative in the lower house.?
&-
s a 3e3ber of the >ouse of Representatives, petitioner Saludo was !orre!tly dee3ed by the !ourt a Buo as possessin%
the reBuire3ents for the said position,
()
in!ludin% that he was then a resident of the distri!t whi!h he was representin%,
i.e., Southern 2eyte. Si%nifi!antly, for purposes of ele!tion law, the ter3 ?residen!e? is synony3ous with ?do3i!ile,? thus9
6 6 6 C/Dhe Court held that ?do3i!ile? and ?residen!e? are synony3ous. /he ter3 ?residen!e,? as used in the ele!tion law,
i3ports not only an intention to reside in a fi6ed pla!e but also personal presen!e in that pla!e, !oupled with !ondu!t
indi!ative of su!h intention. ?Do3i!ile? denotes a fi6ed per3anent residen!e to whi!h when absent for business or
pleasure, or for li$e reasons, one intends to return. 6 6 6
(&
It !an be readily %leaned that the definition of ?residen!e? for purposes of ele!tion law is 3ore strin%ent in that it is eBuated
with the ter3 ?do3i!ile.? >en!e, for the said purpose, the ter3 ?residen!e? i3ports ?not only an intention to reside in a
fi6ed pla!e but also personal presen!e in that pla!e, !oupled with !ondu!t indi!ative of su!h intention.?
((
Hhen parsed,
therefore, the ter3 ?residen!e? reBuires two ele3ents9 0&1 intention to reside in the parti!ular pla!eF and 0(1 personal or
physi!al presen!e in that pla!e, !oupled with !ondu!t indi!ative of su!h intention. s the Court elu!idated, ?the pla!e
where a party a!tually or !onstru!tively has a per3anent ho3e, where he, no 3atter where he 3ay be found at any %iven
ti3e, eventually intends to return and re3ain, i.e., his do3i!ile, is that to whi!h the Constitution refers when it spea$s of
residen!e for the purposes of ele!tion law.?
(*
On the other hand, for purposes of venue, the less te!hni!al definition of ?residen!e? is adopted. /hus, it is understood to
3ean as ?the personal, a!tual or physi!al habitation of a person, a!tual residen!e or pla!e of abode. It si%nifies physi!al
presen!e in a pla!e and a!tual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the ter3 3eans 3erely residen!e, that is, personal
residen!e, not le%al residen!e or do3i!ile. Residen!e si3ply reBuires bodily presen!e as an inhabitant in a %iven pla!e,
while do3i!ile reBuires bodily presen!e in that pla!e and also an intention to 3a$e it one7s do3i!ile.?
(8
Sin!e petitioner Saludo, as !on%ress3an or the lone representative of the distri!t of Southern 2eyte, had his residen!e 0or
do3i!ile1 therein as the ter3 is !onstrued in relation to ele!tion laws, ne!essarily, he is also dee3ed to have had his
residen!e therein for purposes of venue for filin% personal a!tions. Put in another 3anner, Southern 2eyte, as the do3i!ile
of petitioner Saludo, was also his residen!e, as the ter3 is understood in its popular sense. /his is be!ause ?residen!e is
not do3i!ile, but do3i!ile is residen!e !oupled with the intention to re3ain for an unli3ited ti3e.?
Relian!e by the appellate !ourt on Eoh v. Court of ppeals
(.
is 3ispla!ed. Contrary to its holdin%,
(,
the fa!ts of the
present !ase are not si3ilar to the fa!ts therein. In Eoh, the !o3plaint was filed with the Court of <irst Instan!e in San
Ni!olas, Ilo!os Norte by plaintiff who ad3itted that he was a resident of Ea3ias, Kue@on City. Save for the fa!t that he
%rew up in San Ni!olas, Ilo!os Norte and that he 3anifested the intent to return there after retire3ent, plaintiff therein had
not established that he was a!tually a resident therein at the ti3e of the filin% of his !o3plaint. Neither did he establish
that he had his do3i!ile therein be!ause althou%h he 3anifested the intent to %o ba!$ there after retire3ent, the ele3ent
of personal presen!e in that pla!e was la!$in%. /o reiterate, do3i!ile or residen!e, as the ter3s are ta$en as synony3s,
i3ports ?not only an intention to reside in a fi6ed pla!e but also personal presen!e in that pla!e, !oupled with !ondu!t
indi!ative of su!h intention.?
(4
In !ontrast, petitioner Saludo was the !on%ress3an or representative of Southern 2eyte at the ti3e of filin% of his
!o3plaint with the !ourt a Buo. bsent any eviden!e to the !ontrary, he is dee3ed to possess the Bualifi!ations for the
said position, in!ludin% that he was a resident therein. nd followin% the definition of the ter3 ?residen!e? for purposes of
ele!tion law, petitioner Saludo not only had the intention to reside in Southern 2eyte, but he also had personal presen!e
therein, !oupled with !ondu!t indi!ative of su!h intention. /he latter ele3ent, or his bodily presen!e as an inhabitant in
Southern 2eyte, was suffi!ient for petitioner Saludo to be !onsidered a resident therein for purposes of venue.
/he followin% ratio!ination of the !ourt a Buo is apt9
Residen!e in !ivil law is a 3aterial fa!t, referrin% to the physi!al presen!e of a person in a pla!e. person !an have two
or 3ore residen!es, su!h as a !ountry residen!e and a !ity residen!e. 0Kuetulio v. Rui@, S.C. Off. "a@. &.,,
Co33entaries and #urispruden!e in Civil 2aw, =ol. &, pa%e (&&, /olentino1. Residen!e is a!Buired by livin% in a pla!eF on
the other hand, do3i!ile !an e6ist without a!tually livin% in the pla!e. /he i3portant thin% for do3i!ile is that, on!e
residen!e has been established in one pla!e, there be an intention to stay there per3anently, even if residen!e is also
established in so3e other pla!e.
/hus, if a person lives with his fa3ily habitually in Kue@on City, he would have his do3i!ile in Kue@on City. If he also has
a house for va!ation purposes in the City of Ba%uio, and another house in !onne!tion with his business in the City of
'anila, he would have residen!e in all three pla!es 0/olentino, Co33entaries and #urispruden!e on Civil 2aw, =ol. &,
Pa%e (&(, &--) Edition1 so that oneC7Ds le%al residen!e or do3i!ile !an also be his a!tual, personal or physi!al residen!e
or habitation or pla!e of abode if he stays there with intention to stay there per3anently.
In the instant !ase, sin!e plaintiff has a house in 'a$ati City for the purpose of e6er!isin% his profession or doin% business
and also a house in I!hon, 'a!rohon, Southern 2eyte, for doin% business and;or for ele!tion or politi!al purposes where
he also lives or stays physi!ally, personally and a!tually then he !an have residen!es in these two pla!es. Be!ause it
would then be preposterous to a!$nowled%e and re!o%ni@e plaintiff ni!eto ". Saludo, #r. as !on%ress3an of Southern
2eyte without also re!o%ni@in% hi3 as a!tually, personally and physi!ally residin% thereat, when su!h residen!e is
reBuired by law.
(G
/he fa!t then that petitioner Saludo7s !o33unity ta6 !ertifi!ate was issued at Pasay City is of no 3o3ent be!ause
%rantin% ar%uendo that he !ould be !onsidered a resident therein, the sa3e does not pre!lude his havin% a residen!e in
Southern 2eyte for purposes of venue. 3an !an have but one do3i!ile for one and the sa3e purpose at any ti3e, but
he 3ay have nu3erous pla!es of residen!e.
(-
/hat petitioner Saludo was the !on%ress3an or representative of the lone distri!t of Southern 2eyte at the ti3e of the filin%
of his !o3plaint was ad3itted as a fa!t by the !ourt a Buo. In this !onne!tion, it !onseBuently held that, as su!h, petitioner
Saludo7s residen!e in Southern 2eyte, the distri!t he was the representin%, !ould be ta$en 5udi!ial noti!e of. /he !ourt a
Buo !annot be faulted for doin% so be!ause !ourts are allowed ?to ta$e 5udi!ial noti!e of 3atters whi!h are of publi!
$nowled%e, or are !apable of unBuestionable de3onstration, or ou%ht to be $nown to 5ud%es be!ause of their 5udi!ial
fun!tions.?
*)
Courts are li$ewise bound to ta$e 5udi!ial noti!e, without the introdu!tion of eviden!e, of the law in for!e in
the Philippines,
*&
in!ludin% its Constitution.
/he !on!ept of ?fa!ts of !o33on $nowled%e? in the !onte6t of 5udi!ial noti!e has been e6plained as those fa!ts that are
?so !o33only $nown in the !o33unity as to 3a$e it unprofitable to reBuire proof, and so !ertainly $nown to as to 3a$e it
indisputable a3on% reasonable 3en.?
*(
'oreover, ?thou%h usually fa!ts of 7!o33on $nowled%e7 will be %enerally $nown
throu%hout the !ountry, it is suffi!ient as a basis for 5udi!ial noti!e that they be $nown in the lo!al !o33unity where the
trial !ourt sits.?
**
Certainly, the fa!t of petitioner Saludo bein% the duly ele!ted representative of Southern 2eyte at the
ti3e !ould be properly ta$en 5udi!ial noti!e of by the !ourt a Buo, the sa3e bein% a 3atter of !o33on $nowled%e in the
!o33unity where it sits.
<urther, petitioner Saludo7s residen!e in Southern 2eyte !ould li$ewise be properly ta$en 5udi!ial noti!e of by the !ourt a
Buo. It is bound to $now that, under the Constitution, one of the Bualifi!ations of a !on%ress3an or representative to the
>ouse of Representatives is havin% a residen!e in the distri!t in whi!h he shall be ele!ted.
In fine, petitioner Saludo7s a!t of filin% his !o3plaint with the !ourt a Buo !annot be !hara!teri@ed as a ?spe!ie of foru3+
shoppin%? or !apri!ious on his part be!ause, under the rules, as plaintiff, he is pre!isely %iven this option.
<inally, respondents7 !lai3 that the instant petition for review was not properly verified by petitioner Saludo deserves s!ant
!onsideration.
Se!tion 8, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court reads9
Se!. 8. =erifi!ation. + E6!ept when otherwise spe!ifi!ally reBuired by law or rule, pleadin%s need not be under oath,
verified or a!!o3panied by affidavit.
pleadin% is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleadin% and that the alle%ations therein are true and
!orre!t of his personal $nowled%e or based on authenti! re!ords.
pleadin% reBuired to be verified whi!h !ontains a verifi!ation based on ?infor3ation and belief,? or upon ?$nowled%e,
infor3ation and belief,? or la!$s proper verifi!ation, shall be treated as an unsi%ned pleadin%.
Petitioner Saludo7s verifi!ation and !ertifi!ation of non+foru3 shoppin% states that he has ?read the !ontents thereof
Creferrin% to the petitionD and the sa3e are true and !orre!t of 3y own personal $nowled%e and belief and on the basis of
the re!ords at hand.? /he sa3e !learly !onstitutes substantial !o3plian!e with the above reBuire3ents of the Rules of
Court.
H>ERE<ORE, pre3ises !onsidered, the petition is "RN/ED. /he De!ision dated 'ay ((, ())* and Resolution dated
u%ust &8, ())* of the Court of ppeals in C+".R. SP No. ,-..* are RE=ERSED and SE/ SIDE. /he Orders dated
Septe3ber &), ())& and #anuary (, ())( of the Re%ional /rial Court of 'aasin City, Southern 2eyte, Bran!h (. thereof,
in Civil Case No. R+*&4( are REINS//ED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 15'(22 A)*)+, 22, 2006
EMILIA %IGURACION-GERILLA, Petitioner,
vs.
CAROLINA .DA. DE %IGURACION,
/
ELENA %IGURACION-ANC&ETA,/ &ILARIA A. %IGURACION, %ELIA
%IGURACION-MANUEL, 0UINTIN %IGURACION !"# MAR1 %IGURACION-GINE2, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.3
In this petition for review on !ertiorari,
&
petitioner E3ilia <i%ura!ion+"erilla !hallen%es the de!ision
(
and resolution
*
of
the Court of ppeals 0C1 affir3in% the de!ision of the Re%ional /rial Court 0R/C1 of Ardaneta City, Pan%asinan,
Bran!h 8-, whi!h dis3issed her !o3plaint for partition. /he properties involved are two par!els of land whi!h
belon%ed to her late father, 2eandro <i%ura!ion.
/he fa!ts of the !ase follow.
8
Spouses 2eandro and respondent Carolina <i%ura!ion 0now both de!eased1 had si6 !hildren9 petitioner and
respondents Elena <i%ura!ion+n!heta 0now de!eased1, >ilaria <i%ura!ion, <elipa <i%ura!ion+'anuel, Kuintin
<i%ura!ion and 'ary <i%ura!ion+"ine@.
On u%ust (*, &-.., 2eandro e6e!uted a deed of Buit!lai3 over his real properties in favor of his si6 !hildren. Hhen
he died in &-.G, he left behind two par!els of land9 0&1 2ot ((-- of the Cadastral Survey of Ardaneta !onsistin% of
4,.84 sBuare 3eters with /ransfer Certifi!ate of /itle 0/C/1 No. 8((&+P in the na3e of ?2eandro <i%ura!ion, 3arried
to Carolina dviento? and 0(1 2ot 4). of the Cadastral Survey of Ardaneta with an area of (,-)) sB. 3. with /C/ No.
8(()+P also in the na3e of ?2eandro <i%ura!ion, 3arried to Carolina dviento.? 2eandro had inherited both lots fro3
his de!eased parents,
.
as eviden!ed by Ori%inal Certifi!ate of /itle 0OC/1 Nos. &,4*& and &,,&), respe!tively,
issued by the Re%ister of Deeds of the Provin!e of Pan%asinan.
2eandro sold a portion of 2ot ((-- to 2a@aro dviento, as a result of whi!h /C/ No. 8((&+P was !an!elled and /C/
No. &)&**& was issued to ?2a@aro dviento, 3arried to Rosenda Sa%ueped? as owner of the &,( sB. 3. and
?2eandro <i%ura!ion, 3arried to Carolina dviento? as owner of 4,*G. sB. 3. /his lot !ontinued to be in the na3e of
2eandro in /a6 De!laration No. ,&, for the year &-G..
Hhat %ave rise to the !o3plaint for partition, however, was a dispute between petitioner and her sister, respondent
'ary, over the eastern half of 2ot 4)4 of the Cadastral Survey of Ardaneta with an area of *,&,8 sB. 3.
2ot 4)4 belon%ed to Eulalio dviento, as eviden!ed by OC/ No. &.G,4 issued on <ebruary -, &-&,. Hhen dviento
died, his two dau%hters, %ripina dviento 0his dau%hter by his first wife1 and respondent Carolina 0his dau%hter by
his se!ond wife1, su!!eeded hi3 to it. On Nove3ber (G, &-,&, %ripina e6e!uted a Buit!lai3 in favor of petitioner
over the one+half eastern portion of 2ot 4)4. %ripina died on #uly (G, &-,*, sin%le and without any issue. Before
her half+sisterLs death, however, respondent Carolina ad5udi!ated unto herself, via affidavit under Rule 48 of the
Rules of Court, the entire 2ot 4)4 whi!h she later sold to respondents <elipa and >ilaria. /he latter two i33ediately
had OC/ No. &.G,4 !an!elled, on De!e3ber &&, &-,(. new title, /C/ No. 8((88, was then issued in the na3es
of <elipa and >ilaria for 2ot 4)4.
In <ebruary &-4&, petitioner and her fa3ily went to the Anited States where they stayed for ten years. Returnin% in
&-G&,
,
she built a house 3ade of stron% 3aterials on the eastern half+portion of 2ot 4)4. She !ontinued payin% her
share of the realty ta6es thereon.
It was so3eti3e later that this dispute erupted. Petitioner sou%ht the e6tra5udi!ial partition of all properties held in
!o33on by her and respondents. On 'ay (*, &--8, petitioner filed a !o3plaint in the R/C of Ardaneta City, Bran!h
8-, for partition, annul3ent of do!u3ents, re!onveyan!e, Buietin% of title and da3a%es a%ainst respondents,
prayin%, a3on% others, for9 0&1 the partition of 2ots ((-- and 4).F 0(1 the nullifi!ation of the affidavit of self+
ad5udi!ation e6e!uted by respondent Carolina over 2ot 4)4, the deed of absolute sale in favor of respondents <elipa
and >ilaria, and /C/ No. 8((88F 0*1 a de!laration that petitioner was the owner of one+half of 2ot 4)4 and 081
da3a%es. /he !ase was do!$eted as Civil Case No. A+.G(,.
On the other hand, respondents too$ the position that 2eandroLs estate should first under%o settle3ent pro!eedin%s
before partition a3on% the heirs !ould ta$e pla!e. nd they !lai3ed that an a!!ountin% of e6penses !har%eable to
the estate was ne!essary for su!h settle3ent.
On #une (,, &--4,
4
the R/C
G
rendered 5ud%3ent nullifyin% CarolinaLs affidavit of self+ad5udi!ation and deed of
absolute sale of 2ot 4)4. It also de!lared 2ots ((-- and 4). as e6!lusive properties of 2eandro <i%ura!ion and
therefore part of his estate. /he R/C, however, dis3issed the !o3plaint for partition, re!onveyan!e and da3a%es
on the %round that it !ould not %rant the reliefs prayed for by petitioner without any 0prior1 settle3ent pro!eedin%s
wherein the transfer of title of the properties should first be effe!ted.
On appeal, the C upheld the dis3issal of petitionerLs a!tion for partition for bein% pre3ature. /he C reversed the
de!ision, however, with respe!t to the nullifi!ation of the self+ad5udi!ation and the deed of sale. Apholdin% the
validity of the affidavit of self+ad5udi!ation and deed of sale as to CarolinaLs one+half pro-indiviso share, it instead
partitioned 2ot 4)4. Dissatisfied, respondents elevated the C de!ision to this Court in ".R. No. &.&**8,
entitledCarolina vda. de Figuracion, et al. v. Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla.
-
/he issue for our !onsideration is whether or not there needs to be a prior settle3ent of 2eandroLs intestate estate
0that is, an a!!ountin% of the in!o3e of 2ots ((-- and 4)., the pay3ent of e6penses, liabilities and ta6es, plus
!o3plian!e with other le%al reBuire3ents, et!.1 before the properties !an be partitioned or distributed.
Respondents !lai3 that9 0&1 the properties !onstitutin% 2eandroLs estate !annot be partitioned before his estate is
settled and 0(1 there should be an a!!ountin% before anythin% else, !onsiderin% that they 0respondents1 had to
spend for the 3aintenan!e of the de!eased 2eandro <i%ura!ion and his wife in their final years, whi!h support was
supposed to !o3e fro3 the in!o3e of the properties. 3on% other thin%s, respondents apparently wanted petitioner
to share in the e6penses in!urred for the !are of their parents durin% the ten years she stayed in the Anited States,
before she !ould %et her part of the estate while petitioner apparently wanted her %ross share, without first
!ontributin% to the e6penses.
In any event, there appears to be a !o3pli!ation with respe!t to the partition of 2ot 4).. /he re!ords refer to a !ase
entitled Figuracion, et al. v. Alejo !urrently pendin% in the C. /he re!ords, however, %ive no !lue or infor3ation
re%ardin% what e6a!tly this !ase is all about. Hhatever the issues 3ay be, suffi!e it to say that partition is pre3ature
when ownership of the lot is still in dispute.
&)
Petitioner fa!es a different proble3 with respe!t to 2ot ((--. Se!tion &, Rule ,- of the Rules of Court provides9
SEC/ION &. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. M person havin% the ri%ht to !o3pel the partition of
real estate 3ay do so as provided in this Rule, settin% forth in his !o3plaint the nature and e6tent of his title and an
adeBuate des!ription of the real estate of whi!h partition is de3anded and 5oinin% as defendants all other persons
interested in the property.
/he ri%ht to an inheritan!e is trans3itted i33ediately to the heirs by operation of law, at the 3o3ent of death of the
de!edent. /here is no doubt that, as one of the heirs of 2eandro <i%ura!ion, petitioner has a le%al interest in 2ot
((--. But !an she !o3pel partition at this sta%eJ
/here are two ways by whi!h partition !an ta$e pla!e under Rule ,-9 by a%ree3ent under Se!tion (
&&
and throu%h
!o33issioners when su!h a%ree3ent !annot be rea!hed, under Se!tions * to ,.
&(
Neither 3ethod spe!ifies a pro!edure for deter3inin% e6penses !har%eable to the de!edentLs estate. Hhile Se!tion
G of Rule ,- provides that there shall be an a!!ountin% of the real propertyLs in!o3e 0rentals and profits1 in the
!ourse of an a!tion for partition,
&*
there is no provision for the a!!ountin% of e6penses for whi!h property belon%in%
to the de!edentLs estate 3ay be answerable, su!h as funeral e6penses, inheritan!e ta6es and si3ilar e6penses
enu3erated under Se!tion &, Rule -) of the Rules of Court.
In a situation where there re3ains an issue as to the e6penses !har%eable to the estate, partition is inappropriate.
Hhile petitioner points out that the estate is alle%edly without any debt and she and respondents are 2eandro
<i%ura!ionLs only le%al heirs, she does not dispute the findin% of the C that ?!ertain e6penses? in!ludin% those
related to her fatherLs final illness and burial have not been properly settled.
&8
/hus, the heirs 0petitioner and
respondents1 have to sub3it their fatherLs estate to settle3ent be!ause the deter3ination of these e6penses !annot
be done in an a!tion for partition.
In estate settle3ent pro!eedin%s, there is a proper pro!edure for the a!!ountin% of all e6penses for whi!h the estate
3ust answer. If it is any !onsolation at all to petitioner, the heirs or distributees of the properties 3ay ta$e
possession thereof even before the settle3ent of a!!ounts, as lon% as they first file a bond !onditioned on the
pay3ent of the estateLs obli%ations.
&.
4&ERE%ORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. /he Court of ppealsL de!ision and resolution in C+".R. C= No.
.G(-) are A%%IRMED in so far as the issue of the partition of 2ots ((-- and 4). is !on!erned.
But with respe!t to 2ot 4)4, we 3a$e no rulin% on the validity of Carolina vda. de <i%ura!ionLs affidavit of self+
ad5udi!ation and deed of sale in favor of <elipa and >ilaria <i%ura!ion in view of the fa!t that Carolina vda. de
Figuracion, et al. v. Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla 0".R. No. &.&**81 is still pendin% in this Division.
Costs a%ainst petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-''602 No56786r 29, 19(9
MARIA CALMA, !+ !#7i"i+,r!,ri: o; ,<6 ,6+,!76",!r= pro>66#i"*+ o; %!)+,! M!>!+!?)i,, plaintiff+appellant,
vs.
ESERAN2A TA@EDO, !++i+,6# 8= <6r <)+8!"# %6lip6 M!7!)!l, !"# AARTOLOME 0UI2ON, D6p),= S<6ri;;
o; T!rl!>, defendants+appellees.

A.ANCENA, C.J.:
/he spouses Eulalio Cal3a and <austa 'a!asaBuit were the owners of the property des!ribed in the !o3plaint,
bein% their !on5u%al property. /hey were also indebted to Esperan@a /aIedo, !har%eable a%ainst the !on5u%al
property, in the su3s of P-8G.*8 and P(84, with interest thereon at &) per !ent per annu3. On O!tober &), &-**,
<austa 'a!asaBuit died leavin% a will wherein she appointed her dau%hter, 'aria Cal3a, as ad3inistratri6 of her
properties. Apon the !o33en!e3ent of the !orrespondin% probate pro!eedin%s in the Court of <irst Instan!e of
/arla!, the said dau%hter, 'aria Cal3a, was appointed 5udi!ial ad3inistratri6 of the properties of the de!eased.
Hhile these probate pro!eedin%s of the de!eased <austa 'a!asaBuit were pendin%, Esperan@a /anedo, on
#anuary (4, &-*8, filed a !o3plaint a%ainst Eulalio Cal3a for the re!overy of the su3s of P-8G.*8 and P(84. /he
Court of <irst Instan!e of /arla! rendered 5ud%3ent for the pay3ent of this su3. In the e6e!ution of this 5ud%3ent,
despite the third party !lai3 filed by <austa 'a!asaBuit, the property des!ribed in the !o3plaint was sold by the
sheriff.
'aria Cal3a, as ad3inistratri6 of the estate of <austa 'a!asaBuit, now brin%s this a!tion and as$s that the sale
3ade by the sheriff of the property des!ribed in the !o3plaint be annulled and that the estate of <austa 'a!asaBuit
be de!lared the sole and absolute owner thereof. l awphi1.net
/he !ourt absolved the defendants fro3 this !o3plaint.
/he probate pro!eedin%s of the de!eased <austa 'a!asaBuit were instituted in a!!ordan!e with !t No. *&4,
readin%9
SEC. ,G.. Hhen the 3arria%e is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the !o33unity property
shall be inventoried, ad3inistered, and liBuidated, and the debts thereof shall be paid, in the testa3entary or
intestate pro!eedin%s of the de!eased spouse, in a!!ordan!e with the provisions of this Code relative to the
ad3inistration and liBuidation and partition pro!eedin%, unless the parties, bein% all of a%e and le%ally
!apa!itated, avail the3selves of the ri%ht %ranted to the3 by this Code of pro!eedin% to an e6tra5udi!ial
partition and liBuidation of said property.
In !ase it is ne!essary to sell any portion of said !o33unity property in order to pay the outstandin% debts
and obli%ations of the sa3e, su!h sale shall be 3ade in the 3anner and with the for3alities established by
this Code for the sale of the property of de!eased persons. ny sale, transfer, alienation or disposition of
said property effe!ted without said for3alities shall be null and void, e6!ept as re%ards the portion that
belon%ed to the vendor at the ti3e the liBuidation and partition was 3ade.
Prior to this !t, the liBuidation of !on5u%al property was 3ade under se!tion ,G. of the Code of Civil Pro!edure.
Interpretin% the s!ope of !t No. *&4,, this !ourt, in the !ase of Caragay vs. r!ui"a 0.* Phil., 4(1, said that the
a3end3ent introdu!ed by this !t !onsists in authori@in% the institution of testate or intestate pro!eedin%s for the
settle3ent of the estate of a de!eased spouse or of an ordinary a!tion for the liBuidation and partition of the property
of a !on5u%al partnership. It should be understood that these re3edies are alternative, and not !u3ulative, in he
sense that they !annot be availed of at he sa3e ti3e, inas3u!h as an ano3alous and !haoti! situation would result
if !on5u%al property were ad3inistered, liBuidated and distributed at the sa3e ti3e in a testa3entary pro!eedin% and
in an ordinary a!tion for liBuidation and partition of property. ConseBuently, the testa3entary pro!eedin%s of <austa
'a!asaBuit havin% been instituted, the liBuidation and partition of the !on5u%al property by reason of her 3arria%e to
Eulalio Cal3a should be 3ade in these pro!eedin%s, to the e6!lusion of any other pro!eedin% for the sa3e purpose.
Interpretin% this sa3e !t No. *&4, in another de!ision, this !ourt, in the !ase of Cru" vs. #e $esus 0.( Phil., G4)1
said that when the 3arria%e is dissolved by the death of the wife, the le%al power of 3ana%e3ent of the husband
!eases, passin% to the ad3inistrator appointed by the !ourt in the testate or intestate pro!eedin%s instituted to that
end if there be any debts to be paid. /his do!trine has been !onfir3ed in the other !ase of %na vs. #e Gala0.G
Phil., GG&1.
<ro3 the fore%oin% it follows that when Esperan@a /anedo brou%ht suit a%ainst Eulalio Cal3a for the pay3ent of the
su3s of P-8G.*8 and P(84, whi!h wee debts !har%eable a%ainst the !on5u%al property, the power of Eulalio Cal3a.
le%al ad3inistrator of the !on5u%al property while <austa 'a!asaBuit was livin%, had !eased and passed to the
ad3inistratri6 'aria Cal3a appointed in the testa3entary pro!eedin%s of <austa 'a!asaBuit. >en!e, this bein% an
indebtedness !har%eable a%ainst !on5u%al property, no !o3plaint for its pay3ent !an be brou%ht a%ainst Eulalio
Cal3a, who had already !eased as ad3inistrator of the !on5u%al propertyF the !lai3 for this a3ount had to be filed
in the testa3entary pro!eedin%s of <austa 'a!asaBuit.
>avin% to be filed a!!ordin% to !t No. *&4, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Pro!edure relative to the
ad3inistration and liBuidation of properties of de!eased persons, it should be filed before the !o33ittee on !lai3s in
said testa3entary pro!eedin%s and, at all events, thereafter, by appeal to the !orrespondin% Court of <irst Instan!e,
in an ordinary a!tion a%ainst the 5udi!ial ad3inistratri6.
On the other hand, he property des!ribed in the !o3plaint is in!luded a3on% the inventoried properties sub5e!t to
the testa3entary pro!eedin%s of <austa 'a!asaBuit be!ause, belon%in% as it does to the !on5u%al property, it
should, under !t No. *&4,, be in!luded a3on% the properties of the testa3entary pro!eedin%s.
He !on!lude that, Eulalio Cal3a havin% !eased as le%al ad3inistrator of the !on5u%al property had with his wife
<austa 'a!asaBuit, no !o3plaint !an be brou%ht a%ainst hi3 for the re!overy of an indebtedness !har%eable
a%ainst said !on5u%al property, and that the a!tion should be instituted in the testa3entary pro!eedin%s of the
de!eased <austa 'a!asaBuit in the 3anner provided by law, by filin% it first with the !o33ittee on !lai3s.
Hherefore, we hold that the sale of the property des!ribed in the !o3plaint, 3ade by the sheriff in e6e!ution of the
5ud%3ent rendered a%ainst Eulalio Cal3a for the !olle!tion of the indebtedness !har%eable a%ainst the !on5u%al
property, is void and said property should be dee3ed sub5e!t to the testa3entary pro!eedin%s of the de!eased
<austa 'a!asaBuit for all the purposes of that !ase.
/he appealed 5ud%3ent is reversed, without spe!ial pronoun!e3ent as to the !osts. So ordered.
BG.R. No. 115191. M!r>< (1, 2000C
MARIA SOCORRO A.ELINO, petitioner, vs. COURT O% AEALS, ANGELINA A.ELINO,
S&ARON A.ELINO, ANTONIO A.ELINO, JR., TRAC1 A.ELINO, ATRICD MIC&AEL A.ELINO
!"# MARD ANT&ON1 A.ELINO, respondents. S#!!E 7i+o
In &-G-, ntonio velino, Sr. died intestate. In &--&, his dau%hter, 'aria So!orro velino filed a petition for the issuan!e
of letters of ad3inistration of the estate of his de!eased father. ll the other heirs however opposed the petition and they
3oved that the petition be !onverted into an a!tion for 5udi!ial partition of the said estate. /he trial !ourt %ranted the
oppositionLs 3otion and so So!orroLs petition was !onverted a!!ordin%ly. So!orroLs 3otion for re!onsideration was
denied. So!orro then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus alle%in% %rave abuse of dis!retion
a3ountin% to la!$ or e6!ess of 5urisdi!tion on the part of the trial !ourt in %rantin% the other heirs 3otion. /he Court of
ppeals found no reversible error. So!orro elevated the petition to the Supre3e Court. She insists that a partition !annot
be had be!ause the e6tent of the estate is not yet deter3ined hen!e an ad3inistration pro!eedin% is still needed. She
also insists that the Rules of Court does not provide for a !onversion of a petition for ad3inistration to an a!tion for
partition.
ISSUE3 Hhether or not So!orroLs petition for the issuan!e of letters of ad3inistration 3ay be !onverted into an a!tion for
5udi!ial partition.
&ELD3 Nes. /his !an be based on Se!tion & of Rule 48 of the Rules of Court. Hhere the 3ore e6peditious re3edy of
partition is available to the heirs, then the heirs or the 3a5ority of the3 3ay not be !o3pelled to sub3it to ad3inistration
pro!eedin%s. In this !ase, all the heirs, with the e6!eption of So!orro, a%reed to 5udi!ial partition as they see it to be the
3ore !onvenient 3ethod. /here is no 3erit to the !ontention of So!orro that a partition !annot be had be!ause the e6tent
of the estate is not yet deter3ined. /he e6tent of the estate !an a!tually be deter3ined durin% the partition pro!eedin%s.
/herefore, the trial !ourt 3ade no error in !onvertin% So!orroLs petition to an a!tion for 5udi!ial partition.
R E S O L U T I O N
0UISUMAING, J.3
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the De!ision of the Court of ppeals dated <ebruary
&,, &--8 in C+".R. SP No. *&.48 as well as its Resolution dated pril (G, &--8 denyin% petitioner7s
'otion for Re!onsideration. /he assailed De!ision affir3ed the Order of the Re%ional /rial Court of
Kue@on City, Bran!h 4G, in Sp. Pro!. No. K+-&+&)88& !onvertin% petitioner7s petition for the issuan!e
of letters of ad3inistration to an a!tion for 5udi!ial partition.
Petitioner 'aria So!orro velino is a dau%hter and !o3pulsory heir of the late ntonio velino, Sr.,
and his first wife private respondent n%elina velino.
/he other private respondents, Sharon, ntonio #r., /ra!y, Patri!$ and 'ar$ nthony all surna3ed
velino are li$ewise !o3pulsory heirs of velino, Sr. Sharon, an 3eri!an, is the se!ond wife of
velino, Sr. /he other private respondents are siblin%s of petitioner 'a. So!orro.
/he re!ords reveal that on O!tober (8, &--&, 'a. So!orro filed before the Re%ional /rial Court of
Kue@on City, Bran!h 4G, do!$eted as SP Pro!. No. K+-&+&)88&, a petition for the issuan!e of letters
of ad3inistration of the estate of ntonio velino, Sr., who died intestate on pril &), &-G-. She
as$ed that she be appointed the ad3inistrator of the estate.
On De!e3ber *, &--(, n%elina, and the siblin%s filed their opposition by filin% a 3otion to !onvert
the said 5udi!ial pro!eedin%s to an a!tion for 5udi!ial partition whi!h petitioner duly opposed.
On <ebruary &,, &--*, publi! respondent 5ud%e issued the assailed Order whi!h reads9
?!tin% on the O'otion to Convert Pro!eedin%s to !tion for #udi!ial PartitionL,
!onsiderin% that the petitioner is the only heir not a3enable to a si3ple partition, and all
the other !o3pulsory heirs 3anifested their desire for an e6peditious settle3ent of the
estate of the de!eased ntonio velino, Sr., the sa3e is %ranted.
?H>ERE<ORE, the petition is !onverted into 5udi!ial partition of the estate of de!eased
ntonio velino, Sr. /he parties are dire!ted to sub3it a !o3plete inventory of all the
real and personal properties left by the de!eased. Set the hearin% of the 5udi!ial partition
on PRI2 &*, &--*, at G9*) o7!lo!$ in the 3ornin%. Notify all the parties and their
!ounsel of this assi%n3ent.
?SO ORDERED.?
C&D
On 'ar!h &4, &--*, petitioner filed a 3otion for re!onsideration whi!h was denied in an Order dated
#une &,, &--*.
On #uly (*, &--*, 'a. So!orro filed before the Court of ppeals, a petition for certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus alle%in% %rave abuse of dis!retion a3ountin% to la!$ or e6!ess of 5urisdi!tion on the
part of the trial !ourt, in %rantin% private respondents7 3otion to !onvert the 5udi!ial pro!eedin% for the
issuan!e of letters of ad3inistration to an a!tion for 5udi!ial partition. >er petition was do!$eted as
C+".R. SP No. *&.48. Sdaad
On <ebruary &G, &--8, the respondent appellate !ourt rendered the assailed de!ision, statin% that the
?petition is DENIED DAE COARSE? and a!!ordin%ly dis3issed.?
C(D
On 'ar!h &, &--8, petitioner duly 3oved for re!onsideration, but it was denied on pril (G, &--8.
>en!e, this petition. Petitioner assi%ns the followin% errors9
/>E COAR/ O< PPE2S ERRED IN AP>O2DIN" />E 2OHER COAR/7S <INDIN"
/>/ PR/I/ION IS PROPER ANDER />E PRE'ISES.
D'INIS/R/ION S>OA2D BE />E PROPER RE'EDN PENDIN" />E
DE/ER'IN/ION O< />E C>RC/ER ND E:/EN/ O< />E DECEDEN/7S
ES//E.
C*D
<or resolution, we find that %iven the !ir!u3stan!es in this !ase, the sole issue here is whether
respondent appellate !ourt !o33itted an error of law and %ravely abused its dis!retion in upholdin%
the trial !ourt7s findin% that a partition is proper.
Petitioner sub3its that9 <irst, no partition of the estate is possible in the instant !ase as no
deter3ination has yet been 3ade of the !hara!ter and e6tent of the de!edent7s estate. She points to
the Court7s rulin% in Arcilles v. &ontejo, (, SCR &-4 0&-,-1, where we held that when the e6isten!e
of other properties of the de!edent is a 3atter still to be re!$oned with, ad3inistration pro!eedin%s
are the proper 3ode of resolvin% the sa3e.
C8D
In addition, petitioner !ontends that the estate is in
dan%er of bein% depleted for want of an ad3inistrator to 3ana%e and attend to it.
Se!ond, petitioner insists that the Rules of Court does not provide for !onversion of a 3otion for the
issuan!e of letters of ad3inistration to an a!tion for 5udi!ial partition. /he !onversion of the 3otion
was, thus, pro!edurally inappropriate and should be stru!$ down for la!$ of le%al basis.
Hhen a person dies intestate, or, if testate, failed to na3e an e6e!utor in his will or the e6e!utor so
na3ed is in!o3petent, or refuses the trust, or fails to furnish the bond reBuired by the Rules of Court,
then the de!edent7s estate shall be 5udi!ially ad3inistered and the !o3petent !ourt shall appoint a
Bualified ad3inistrator in the order established in Se!tion , of Rule 4G.
C.D
/he e6!eptions to this rule
are found in Se!tions & and ( of Rule 48
C,D
whi!h provide9
?SEC/ION &. E'trajudicial settlement (y agreement (etween heirs. + If the de!edent left
no will and no debts and the heirs are all of a%e or the 3inors are represented by their
5udi!ial or le%al representatives duly authori@ed for the purpose, the parties 3ay, without
se!urin% letters of ad3inistration, divide the estate a3on% the3selves as they see fit by
3eans of a publi! instru3ent filed in the offi!e of the re%ister of deeds, and should they
disa%ree, they 3ay do so in an ordinary a!tion of partition.. S!sP daad
?SEC. (. )ummary settlement of estates of small value.+ Hhenever the %ross value of
the estate of a de!eased person, whether he died testate or intestate, does not e6!eed
ten thousand pesos, and that fa!t if 3ade to appear to the Re%ional /rial Court havin%
5urisdi!tion of the estate by the petition of an interested person and upon hearin%, whi!h
shall be held not less than one 0&1 3onth nor 3ore than three 0*1 3onths fro3 the date
of the last publi!ation of a noti!e whi!h shall be published on!e a wee$ for three 0*1
!onse!utive wee$s in a newspaper of %eneral !ir!ulation in the provin!e, and after su!h
other noti!e to interested persons as the !ourt 3ay dire!t, the !ourt 3ay pro!eed
su33arily, without the appoint3ent of an e6e!utor or ad3inistrator, and without delay,
to %rant, if proper, allowan!e of the will, if any there be, to deter3ine who are the
persons le%ally entitled to parti!ipate in the estate and to apportion and divide it a3on%
the3 after the pay3ent of su!h debts of the estate as the !ourt shall then find to be dueF
and su!h persons, in their own ri%ht, if they are lawful a%e and le%al !apa!ity, or by their
%uardians or trustees le%ally appointed and Bualified, if otherwise, shall thereupon be
entitled to re!eive and enter into the possession of the portions of the estate so
awarded to the3 respe!tively. /he !ourt shall 3a$e su!h order as 3ay be 5ust
respe!tin% the !osts of the pro!eedin%s, and all orders and 5ud%3ents 3ade or
rendered in the !ourse thereof shall be re!orded in the offi!e of the !ler$, and the order
of partition or award, if it involves real estate, shall be re!orded in the proper re%ister7s
offi!e.?
/he heirs su!!eed i33ediately to all of the ri%hts and properties of the de!eased at the 3o3ent of
the latter7s death.
C4D
Se!tion &, Rule 48 of the Rules of Court, allows heirs to divide the estate a3on%
the3selves without need of delay and ris$s of bein% dissipated. Hhen a person dies without leavin%
pendin% obli%ations, his heirs, are not reBuired to sub3it the property for 5udi!ial ad3inistration, nor
apply for the appoint3ent of an ad3inistrator by the !ourt.
CGD
He note that the Court of ppeals found that in this !ase ?the de!edent left no debts and the heirs
and le%atees are all of a%e.?
C-D
Hith this findin%, it is our view that Se!tion &, Rule 48 of the Rules of
Court should apply.
In a last+dit!h effort to 5ustify the need for an ad3inistrator, petitioner insists that there is nothin% to
partition yet, as the nature and !hara!ter of the estate have yet to be deter3ined. He find, however,
that a !o3plete inventory of the estate 3ay be done durin% the partition pro!eedin%s, espe!ially sin!e
the estate has no debts. >en!e, the Court of ppeals !o33itted no reversible error when it ruled that
the lower !ourt did not err in !onvertin% petitioner7s a!tion for letters of ad3inistration into an a!tion
for 5udi!ial partition. SupQ re3a
Nor !an we sustain petitioner7s ar%u3ent that the order of the trial !ourt !onvertin% an a!tion for
letters of ad3inistration to one for 5udi!ial partition has no basis in the Rules of Court, hen!e
pro!edurally infir3. /he basis for the trial !ourt7s order is Se!tion &, Rule 48 of the Rules of Court. It
provides that in !ases where the heirs disa%ree as to the partition of the estate and no e6tra5udi!ial
settle3ent is possible, then an ordinary a!tion for partition 3ay be resorted to, as in this !ase. He
have held that where the 3ore e6peditious re3edy of partition is available to the heirs, then the heirs
or the 3a5ority of the3 3ay not be !o3pelled to sub3it to ad3inistration pro!eedin%s.
C&)D
/he trial !ourt
appropriately !onverted petitioner7s a!tion for letters of ad3inistration into a suit for 5udi!ial partition,
upon 3otion of the private respondents. No reversible error 3ay be attributed to the Court of ppeals
when it found the trial !ourt7s a!tion pro!edurally in order.
4&ERE%ORE, the petition is DENIED for la!$ of 3erit, and the assailed de!ision and resolution of
the Court of ppeals is C+".R. SP No. *&.48 are <<IR'ED. Costs a%ainst petitioner.
SO ORDERED.