VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE v.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-40502 | November 29, 1976

Facts:
Virginia Garcia Fule filed with the CFI of Laguna, at Calamba, for a petition moved ex parte for
her appointment as special administratrix over the estate of Garcia, who died intestate in the City
of Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna, and in other places,
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court." A motion for reconsideration was filed by
Preciosa, contending that the order appointing Fule as special administratrix was issued without
jurisdiction and prayed that she be appointed special administratrix of the estate, in lieu of Fule,
and as regular administratrix after due hearing. While this reconsideration motion was pending,
Preciosa filed a motion to remove Fule as special administratrix alleging, besides the
jurisdictional ground, that her appointment was obtained through erroneous, misleading and/or
incomplete misrepresentations and has adverse interest against the estate. Judge Malvar ruled
denying Preciosa B. Garcia's motion to reconsider the appointment of Fule and that Preciosa had
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and had waived her objections thereto by praying to be
appointed as special and regular administratrix of the estate. An omnibus motion was filed by
Preciosa to clarify or reconsider the foregoing order of Judge Malvar, in view of previous court
order limiting the authority of the special administratrix to the making of an inventory. Preciosa
also asked for the resolution of her motion to dismiss the petitions for lack of cause of action,
and also that filed in behalf of Agustina Garcia. Resolution of her motions to substitute and
remove the special administratrix was likewise prayed for. Preciosa and Agustina B. Garcia
commenced a special action for certiorari and/or prohibition and preliminary injunction before
the Court of Appeals to annul the proceedings before Judge Malvar of the Court of First Instance
of Laguna. Court of Appeals affirmed stating the CFI of Calamba Laguna has no jurisdiction
over the case. Hence, this present petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the venue is improperly laid
Held:
Yes. Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case base on the merits or
the substance of the facts. It is a substantive aspect of the trial proceeding. It is granted by law or
by the constitution and cannot be waived or stipulated.

On the other hand, Rule 4 of Rules of Court define venue as the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. Venue is
the location of the court with jurisdiction. It is more on convenience purposes. It’s more on
procedural aspect of the case. In some cases, it may be waived or stipulated by the parties.
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court states that “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 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 of any province in which he had estate.