FIRST STUDY GUIDE OUTPUT - VENUE AND JURISDICTION ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

LOCSIN, DANIELE NICOL F.

I.
G.R. No. 169700 July 30, 2009
APOLONIA BANAYAD FRIANELA, Petitioner,
vs.
SERVILLANO BANAYAD, JR., Respondent.
PARTIES:
Petitioners: APOLONIA BANAYAD FRIANELA
Respondent: SERVILLANO BANAYAD, JR.
PETITION FILED IN THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
by APOLONIA BANAYAD FRIANELA:
Petition for Allowance of the November 18, 1985 Holographic will of the decedent, Moises F.
Banayad
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City.
VENUE OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Pasay City.
DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Declaring the September 27, 1989 holographic will as having revoked the November 18, 1985
will, allowing the former, and appointing respondent as administrator of Moises’s estate.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The trial court’s assumption of unauthorized jurisdiction over the probate proceedings has been
discovered by the Court during the appeal stage of the main case, not during the execution stage
of a final and executory decision. Thus, the exceptional rule laid down in Tijam cannot apply.
RTC has no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the decision
rendered, are null and void.
DID THE COURT OF ORIGIN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION?
NO. Nowhere in the petition is there a statement of the gross value of Moises’s estate.
WAS THE VENUE PROPER?
YES. Pasay was the testator’s residence at the time of death

II.
G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007
EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner,
vs.
FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.
x ---------------------------------------------------- x
G.R. No. 134029 February 6, 2007
RODOLFO SAN LUIS, Petitioner,
vs.
FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent.
PARTIES:
G.R. No. 133743:
Petitioners: EDGAR SAN LUIS
Respondent: FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS
G.R. No. 134029:
Petitioners: RODOLFO SAN LUIS
Respondent: FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS
 FIRST STUDY GUIDE OUTPUT - VENUE AND JURISDICTION ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

LOCSIN, DANIELE NICOL F.

PETITION FILED IN THE COURT OF ORIGIN:

by FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS:
Dissolution of conjugal partnership assets, Settlement of Felicisimo’s Estate, and Letters of
Administration
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.
VENUE OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Makati City.
DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Dismissed petition for letters of Administration
Residence of decedent was not in Makati but Laguna
Respondent has no legal capacity to be appointed as letters of administration (marriage with
decedent was void ab initio)
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Petition is Denied
Orders issued by the CA were affirmed
Remanded to the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by
Merry Lee and marriage of respondent and Felicisimo
DID THE COURT OF ORIGIN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION?
YES ( The Gross value of the estate (30,304,178) is within the jurisdiction of the RTC
WAS THE VENUE PROPER?
YES (Alabang Muntinlupa, is the residence of the decedent at the time of death, and was then
under the jurisdiction of RTC Makati)

III.
G.R. No. L-24742 October 26, 1973
ROSA CAYETANO CUENCO, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DIVISION, MANUEL CUENCO, LOURDES CUENCO,
CONCEPCION CUENCO MANGUERRA, CARMEN CUENCO, CONSUELO CUENCO REYES, and
TERESITA CUENCO GONZALEZ, respondents.
PARTIES:
Petitioner: ROSA CAYETANO CUENCO
Respondents: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DIVISION, MANUEL CUENCO,
LOURDES CUENCO, CONCEPCION CUENCO MANGUERRA, CARMEN CUENCO, CONSUELO
CUENCO REYES, and TERESITA CUENCO GONZALEZ
PETITION FILED IN THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Petition for Letters of Administration by Lourdes Cuenco
Probate of Last will and testament by Rosa Cayetano
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Lourdes Cuenco – CFI CEBU
Rosa Cayetano – CFI RIZAL
VENUE OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Cebu
Rizal
DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
CFI Cebu - issued its order holding in abeyance its action on the dismissal motion and deferred
 FIRST STUDY GUIDE OUTPUT - VENUE AND JURISDICTION ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

LOCSIN, DANIELE NICOL F.

to the Quezon City court, awaiting its action on the petition for probate before that court.
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.

CFI RIZAL–determined the proper venue was that the actual residence if the decedent who died
testate was Quezon City. It admitted the decedent’s last will to probate and naming petitioner-
widow as executrix thereof.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Supreme Court's exercise of its supervisory authority over all inferior courts, 22 it may properly
determine, as it has done in the case at bar, that venue was  properly assumed by
and transferred to the Quezon City court and that it is the interest of justice and in avoidance of
needless delay that the Quezon City court's exercise of jurisdiction over the testate estate of the
decedent (with the due deference and consent of the Cebu court) and its admission to probate
of his last will and testament and appointment of petitioner-widow as administratrix without
bond in pursuance of the decedent's express will and all its orders and actions taken in the
testate proceedings before it be approved and authorized rather than to annul all such
proceedings regularly had and to repeat and duplicate the same proceedings before the Cebu
court only to revert once more to the Quezon City court should the Cebu court find that indeed
and in fact, as already determined by the Quezon City court on the strength of incontrovertible
documentary evidence of record, Quezon City was the conjugal residence of the decedent.
DID THE COURT OF ORIGIN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION?
YES.
WAS THE VENUE PROPER?
YES.

IV.
G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970
VICENTE URIARTE, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL (12th Judicial District) THE COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH IV, JUAN URIARTE ZAMACONA and HIGINIO URIARTE,
respondents.
PARTIES:
Petitioners: VICENTE URIARTE
Respondent: THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL (12th Judicial District)
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH IV, JUAN URIARTE ZAMACONA and
HIGINIO URIARTE
PETITION FILED IN THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
by Vicente Uriarte – Special Proceeding No. 6344 Petition for Settlement of the Estate of the late
Don Juan Uriarte y Goite
by Vicente Uriarte – Civil Case No. 6142 Compulsory acknowledgment as such natural son
by Juan Uriarte Zamacona – Special Proceeding No. 51396 in the Manila Court for the probate of
a document alleged to be the last will of the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Special Proceeding No. 6344 – CFI of Negros Occidental
 FIRST STUDY GUIDE OUTPUT - VENUE AND JURISDICTION ON SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

LOCSIN, DANIELE NICOL F.

Civil Case No. 6142 –CFI of Negros Occidental

Special Proceeding No. 51396 – CFI of Manila
VENUE OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Special Proceeding No. 6344 – Negros
Civil Case No. 6142 –Negros
Special Proceeding No. 51396 – Manila
DECISION OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN:
Negros Court: sustained Juan Uriarte Zamacona's motion to dismiss and dismissed the Special
Proceeding No. 6344 pending before it.
Manila Court: appointed the Philippine National Bank as special administrator
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Assailed the decision of the court of origin. Petitioner is entitled to prosecute Civil Case No. 6142
until it is finally determined, or intervene in Special Proceeding No. 51396 of the Manila Court, if
it is still open, or to ask for its reopening if it has already been closed, so as to be able to submit
for determination the question of his acknowledgment as natural child of the deceased testator
DID THE COURT OF ORIGIN VALIDLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION?
Special Proceeding No. 6344 – YES
Civil Case No. 6142 –YES
Special Proceeding No. 51396 – YES
WAS THE VENUE PROPER?
Special Proceeding No. 6344 – YES
Civil Case No. 6142 – YES
Special Proceeding No. 51396 – No, but waived their right to question (laches)