Remedial Law Case Digest:

AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON and MARIA JENNIFER QUIAZON, petitioners, vs. MA. LOURDES BELEN, for and in behalf of MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON, respondent.

Facts:

This case started as a Petition for Letters of Administration of the Estate of Eliseo, filed by herein respondents who are Eliseo’s common-law wife and daughter.  The petition was opposed by herein petitioners Amelia to whom Eliseo  was married.  Amelia was joined by her children, Jenneth and Jennifer.

Eliseo died intestate. Later on, Elise represented by her mother Lourdes filed a petition for Letters of Administration before the RTC. Elise claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo having been conceived and born at the time when her parents were both capacitated to marry each other. To prove her filiation to the decedent, Elise, among others, attached to the Petition for Letters of Administration her Certificate of Live Birth signed by Eliseo as her father. In order to preserve the estate of Eliseo and to prevent the dissipation of its value, Elise sought her appointment as administratrix of her late father’s estate.

Claiming that the venue of the petition was improperly laid, Amelia, together with her children, Jenneth and Jennifer, opposed the issuance of the letters of administration by filing an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss. The petitioners asserted that as shown by his Death Certificate, Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las Piñas City, at the time of his death. Pursuant to Section 1,Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petition for settlement of decedent’s estate should have been filed in Capas, Tarlac and not in Las Piñas City. The petitioners also averred that there are no factual and legal bases for Elise to be appointed as admistratix of Eliseo’s estate.

RTC rendered a decision directing the issuance of Letters of Administration to Elise upon posting the necessary bond. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. In validating the findings of the RTC, the Court of Appeals held that Elise was able to prove that Eliseo and Lourdes lived together as husband and wife by establishing a common residence at No. 26 Everlasting Road, Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City, from 1975 up to the time of Eliseo’s death in 1992. For purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of Eliseo’s estate, the Court of Appeals upheld the conclusion reached by the RTC that the decedent was a resident of Las Piñas City.

Issues:

Whether Las Piñas was the proper venue?

Ruling:

The Court ruled in affirmative. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the estate of a decedent should be filed in the RTC of the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death:

Sec. 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. – 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, in the Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court of any province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. 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 proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.

The term “resides” connotes “actual residence” as distinguished from “legal residence or domicile.” This term “resides,” like the terms “residing” and “residence,” is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. In the application of venue statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature – residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. Even where the statute uses word “domicile” still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms “residence” and “domicile” but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term “inhabitant.” In other words, “resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. Venue for ordinary civil actions and that for special proceedings have one and the same meaning. As thus defined, “residence,” in the context of venue provisions, means nothing more than a person’s actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.

Viewed in light of the foregoing principles, the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for affirming the ruling of the RTC that the venue for the settlement of the estate of Eliseo was properly laid in Las Piñas City. It is evident from the records that during his lifetime, Eliseo resided at No. 26 Everlasting Road, Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City. For this reason, the venue for the settlement of his estate may be laid in the said city.

Takeaway: It is well expressed in Section 1 of Rule 73 of the Rules of Court that the petition for the letters of administration of estate shall be filed to the Regional Trial Court of the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death. Hence, it is clear from the wording of these special proceedings identify the court that would take cognizance of the case at hand.