Cuenco vs.

CA
G.R. No. L-24742, October 26, 1973
Topic: Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons, RULE 73:Venue and Process
Synopsis: Petition for probate of the decedents last will has been presented in
another court where the decedent obviously had his conjugal domicile with his
family.The allegation of the intestate petition before it stating decedent died
intestate may actually be false,may decline to take cognizance of the petition,and
instead may defer to the second court for the probate of the decedents alleged last
will.

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.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition.

Ruling: Yes, the appellate court erred in issuing the writ of prohibition against
the Quezon City court from proceeding with the testate proceedings 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.
It is equally conceded that the residence of the deceased or the location of
his estate is not an element of jurisdiction over the subject 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. Conversely, such court, may upon learning that a petition for probate of the
decedent's last will has been presented in another court where the decedent
obviously had his conjugal domicile and resided with his surviving widow and their
minor children, and that the allegation of the intestate petition before it stating that
the decedent died intestate may be actually false, may decline to take cognizance
of the petition and hold the petition before it in abeyance, and instead defer to the
second court which has before it the petition for probate of the decedent's alleged
last will.Implicit in the Cebu court's order was that if the will was duly admitted to
probate, by the Quezon City court, then it would definitely decline to take
cognizance of Lourdes' intestate petition which would thereby be shown to be false
and improper, and leave the exercise of jurisdiction to the Quezon City court, to the
exclusion of all other courts.