Uriarte v CFI May 29, 1970 Doctrine: 1) CFI has jurisdiction of all matters of probate, that is, for

the special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person. As regards inhabitants of a foreign country, the venue of the special proceedings shall be in the CFI of any province where the decedent had properties Testate proceedings have precedence over intestate proceedings.

2) Facts:

On November 6, 1961, petitioner Vicente Uriarte filed a petition for the settlement of the estate(SP 6344) of Don Juan Uriarte in the Negros Court, alleging that 1) he is the natural son of Don Juan and the sole heir. 2) That during the lifetime of Don Juan, petitioner had filed a petition, Civil Case 6143, in the Negros Court to be acknowledged as his natural child. (Intestate Proceeding) On December , 1961, Higinio Uriarte, one of the respondents, filed an opposition to the petition alleging that he was a nephew of the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite who had "executed a Last Will and Testament in Spain, and also questioned petitioner's capacity and interest to commence the intestate proceeding. On August 28, 1962, Juan Uriarte Zamacona, the other respondent commenced in the Manila Court for the probate of a document (SP 513896) alleged to be the last will of the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite. (Testate Proceeding). He also filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that: 1) as the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite had left a last will, there was no legal basis to proceed with said intestate proceedings, and 2) petitioner had no legal personality and interest to initiate said intestate proceedings, he not being an acknowledged natural son of the decedent. Petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Negros Court was the first to take cognizance of the proceedings in accordance with Rule 75 Sec 1. Negros court dismissed SP 6344. The motion for reconsideration filed by Uriarte was denied. The petitioner then filed a record on appeal. Soon afterwards he also filed a petition for certiorari directly to the SC. For this reason the Negros Court dismissed his notice of appeal regarding SP 6344. He then filed for a petition for Mandamus to compel the Negros Court to approve his record on appeal and give due course to his appeal.He also filed an Omnibus motion to intervene on SP 513896 to annul the proceedings but this was denied by the Manila Court. Issue: Which court, between Negros and Manila, should take cognizance of the case? Held/Ratio: On the basis of hierarchy of proceedings between testate and intestate, it should have been the Manila Court. However, in consideration of public policy, it should have been filed in the Negros Court(Venue). Nevertheless, Venue is waiveable and thus Manila Court has jurisdiction. Under the Judiciary Act of 1948 [Section 44, paragraph (e)], Courts of First Instance have original exclusive jurisdiction over "all matters of probate," that is, over special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons whether they died testate or intestate. Moreover, Rule 75 Sec 1 also provides that as regards inhabitants of a foreign country, the CFI of any province in which he had estate shall be the venue for the action. Don Juan, a non-resident alien had considerable properties, both in Negros and Manila. However, between testate and intestate proceedings, it must be noted that testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of intestate proceedings pending before a CFI if it is found it that the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. If the alleged last will is later disapproved or rejected, then the intestacy proceedings will continue.

Nevertheless, respondent should have commenced his testate proceeding in the Negros court as well, in a separate proceeding or as a motion in SP 6344 considering that it is not in accord with public policy and the orderly and inexpensive administration of justice to unnecessarily multiply litigation, especially if several courts would be involved. Nevertheless, the Manila Court still had jurisdiction to hear the case, though the venue is wrong. However, venue is waiveable. In this case, Uriarte had waived the venue considering that since Dec 1961, he had been aware of the Manila court proceedings, but it was only April 1963 that he filed his Omnibus motion to intervene and call for the dismissal of said case. Allowing to him to assail the venue would be putting a premium on negligence.