ROSA CAYETANO CUENCO, petitioner vs CA, MANUEL CUENCO, LOURDES CUENCO, CONCEPCION CUENCO,

MANGUERRA CUENCO, CARMEN CUENCO, CONSUELO CUENCO-REYES AND TERESITA CUENCO-GONZALES,

respondents
Teehankee, J. October 26, 1973 GR No L-24742
Doctrine
Venue and process. The rule on venue does not state that the court with whom the testate or intestate
petition is first filed acquires exclusive jurisdiction. It precisely provides that the court first taking cognizance
of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
courts. This indicates that the court with whom the petition is first filed must also be the first to take
cognizance of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
Such court may also decline to take cognizance of the petition and hold it in abeyance deferring to the second
court upon learning that a petition for probate of the last will has been presented in another court.

Production and probate of will. Testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased take
precedence over the intestate proceedings for the same purpose. The probate of a will by a court having
jurisdiction is conclusive as to its due execution and validity.
Summary
Senator Mariano died. He was survived by his second wife and their sons and his children of the first marriage.
Respondent Lourdes filed a Petition for Letters of Administration with CFI Cebu alleging that deceased died
intestate. A week later, petitioner filed a petition before CFI QC for the probate of the will. CFI Cebu issued an
order holding in abeyance its resolution until after CFI QCs decision regarding the validity of the will. CFI QC
allowed the will to probate. Respondents questioned the jurisdiction of CFI QC alleging that since a petition was
first filed before CFI Cebu, then such court acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case to the exclusion of all
other courts. HELD: CFI-QC validly acquired jurisdiction. Both CFI Cebu and QC have concurrent jurisdiction over
the subject matter. Rule 73 merely lays down the venue which requires the petition to be filed at the court
where the deceased resided at the time of his death. CFI QC did not act with GADALEJ when it assumed
jurisdiction since CFI Cebu had not taken cognizance of the case yet. Furthermore, it has been established that
testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased take precedence over the intestate
proceedings for the same purpose.
Facts
Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died on February 25, 1964 at the Manila Doctors Hospital. He was survived
by (1) his second wife (petitioner), their two minor sons, all residing in Quezon City; (2) and his children of
the first marriage (respondents), all residents of Cebu.

Cebu case. On March 5, 1964, respondent Lourdes filed a Petition for Letters of Administration with CFI
Cebu alleging, among other things, that the late senator died intestate in Manila, that he was a resident of
Cebu at the time of his death, and that he left real and personal properties in Cebu and Quezon city.

CFI Cebu issued an order setting the petition for hearing and directing that due notice be given to all the
heirs and interested persons, and ordering the requisite publication. A week later, the court issued another
order holding that it will be premature for this Court to at thereon, it not having yet regularly acquired
jurisdiction to try the proceeding, the requisite publication of the notice of hearing not yet having been
complied with.

Quezon city case. On March 12, 1964, petitioner Rosa filed a petition with the CFI Rizal (Quezon, City) for
the probate of the late senators last will and testament and for the issuance of letters of testamentary in
her favor as the surviving spouse and executrix in the said last will and testament.

Having learned of the intestate proceeding in the Cebu court, Rosa filed an Opposition and Motion to
Dismiss + Opposition to Petition for Appointment of Special Administrator.

CFI Cebu. Issued an order holding in abeyance its resolution on petitioners MTD until after CFI QC shall
have acted on the petition for probate of the document purporting to be the last will and testament of the
deceased Don Mariano Jose Cuenco

Respondents neither filed an MR nor filed an appeal with the appellate courts. Instead, they filed an
Opposition and Motion to Dismiss (for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue) before the CFI QC opposing
the probate of the will and assailing the jurisdiction of the said QC court in view of the alleged exclusive
 jurisdiction vested in the Cebu court.

CFI QC. Denied the MTD due to the precedence of probate proceedings over intestate proceeding.
Furthermore, it found that the residence of deceased at the time of his death was in QC. In his will, the
deceased indicated that he was a resident of QC and also of Cebu. He made the former his first choice and
the latter as his second choice. If a party has two residences, the one which the party selects or consider to
be his home or which appears to be the center of his affairs would be considered his domicile. The court
also denied the 2 MRs filed by respondent.

Respondents failed to appear at the scheduled hearing for probate of the will in QC. The court proceeded
despite their absence. It admitted the will to probate and appointed Rosa as the executrix

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA. The court granted the writ. It held
that the venue fixed by Rule 73, Section 1 covers both intestate and testate proceedings. Since the first
proceeding was instituted before the CFI Cebu, said court must exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of CFI
QC.
Ratio/Issues

I. Whether CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition against qc court ordering it to refrain
perpetually from proceeding with the testate proceedings and annulling and setting aside
all its orders and actions [YES]

(1) The Judiciary Act confers original jurisdiction upon all CFI over all matters of probate, both of testate
and intestate estates. On the other hand Rule 73 lays down the rule on venue. It states that to prevent
conflict among the different courts which may properly assume jurisdiction, the court first taking
cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of
all other courts.

(2) The residence of the deceased or the location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction over the
subject matter by merely of venue. Furthermore, the rule on venue does not state that the court with
whom the testate or intestate petition is first filed acquires exclusive jurisdiction. It precisely provides
that the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise
exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. According to SC, a fair reading of the rule
indicates that the court with whom the petition is first filed must also be the first to take cognizance of
the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.

(3) Such court may also decline to take cognizance of the petition and hold it in abeyance deferring to the
second court upon learning that a petition for probate of the last will has been presented in another
court where the decedent obviously has his domicile, and that the allegation of the intestate petition
stating that the decedent died intestate may be false.

(4) That is what the Cebu court did. Implicit in its decision is that if the will was duly admitted to probate
by the QC court, then it would definitely decline to take cognizance of the intestate proceeding and
leave the exclusive jurisdiction to CFI QC. Cebu court could not be held to have acted with GADALEJ in
declining to take cognizance of the intestate petition and deferring to the QC court.

(5) Likewise, QC court did not act with GADALEJ

a. when it assumed jurisdiction since the Cebu court have yet to take cognizance of the case. Since
the CFI QC took cognizance over the probate petition and assumed jurisdiction over the estate,
with consent and deference of the Cebu court, the exclusive jurisdiction of the QC court must be
upheld.

b. when it admitted the will to probate considering the facts of the case and the failure of the
respondents to appear despite due notice and submission of their opposition to probate of the will.

(6) Doctrine of precedence over probate proceedings (Uriarte vs CFI):

 testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased take precedence over the intestate
proceedings for the same purpose. Thus, it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of the intestate
proceedings pending before a court of first instance, it is found that the decedent had left a last will,
proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if an administrator
had already been appointed This however, is understood to be without prejudice that should the alleged
last will be rejected or disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as intestacy.

(7) Rule 73 also states that the assumption of jurisdiction by the CFI QC cannot be contested except by
appeal from said court in the original case or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. The
exception could probably invoked had such deference in comity of the CFI Cebu to CFI QC not appeared
in the record, or had the record otherwise shown that the Cebu court had taken cognizance of the
petition before it and assumed jurisdiction.

(8) Re: QC as the residence of the deceased CFI QC, having thus determined in effect for both
courts, at the behest and with deference and consent of CFI Cebu, validly ruled that QC was the actual
residence of the decedent and thus, the proper venue. It would be absurd to require the CFI Cebu to
determine for itself the actual residence of the decedent, since it already deferred to the judgment of
the CFI QC and the respondents have not seriously questioned this finding based on documentary
evidence.

(9) Established legal concept as restated by Moran, re: probate of will the probate of a will is a
proceeding in rem. The notice by publication, as a prerequisite to the allowance of a will, is a
constructive notice to the whole world. When probate is granted, the judgment of the court is binding
upon everybody, even the State. The probate of a will by a court having jurisdiction thereof is
conclusive as to its due execution and validity.

(10)If the question of jurisdiction were to be made to depend only on who of the decedents relatives gets
to file first, then the established jurisprudence that Rule 73 only provides the rule on venue and that
the same is waivable would be for naught. It would be converted into a race between relatives as to
who can file a petition faster in the court of their choice, in disregard of the decedents actual last
domicile and the fact that he left a last will and testament.

(11)Since respondents undisputable failed to appeal from the CFI QCs order admitting the will to probate
and appointing petitioner as executrix, said order had long since become final and cannot be
overturned in special civil action for prohibition.

(12)It should be noted that in the SCs exercise of its supervisory authority over all inferior courts, it may
properly determine that venue was properly assumed by and transferred to the QC court and that it is
in the interest of justice and avoidance of needless delay that the actions and orders issued by the CFI
QC be authorized rather than annul.

Held
CA decision and resolution are REVERSED and the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED. No costs.