 CIVIL ACTION – party sues another for the establishment/protection

of a right or the prevention/redress of a wrong

o Formal demand
o Usually, two-party proceeding

 SPECIAL PROCEEDING – remedy where a party seeks to establish a

status, a right or a particular fact (fact or death)
o Petition
o Usually, one party
o Non-adversarial – there is no definite adverse party

1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS

o With/WO court intervention
 Other MODES:
o Summary settlement of estate of small value
o Partitions
o Through letters testamentary or letters of administration with or
without the will annexed
 NOTE: probate proceedings – MTC
o Other spec pros – RTC

PRELIM: BEFORE RULE 73, THE FF. MUST BE CONSIDERED FIRST

Q. WHAT IS JURISDICTION IN RE SPEC PRO?

A. The power/authority of the court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order
for the court/an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case
on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject
matters (Mitsubishi Motors PH Corp v. Bureau of Customs)

 Original J: power of the court to take judicial cognizance of cases

instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided
by law
 Exclusive J: power of the court to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the
exclusion of other courts at that stage

Q. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES

A. The power of the courts to make decisions that are binding on them
(People’s General Insurance v. Edgardo Guansing)
Q. JURISDICTION OVER RES

A. The power of the court over an object or thing being litigated. It

acquires jurisdiction over the thing by actually or constructively seizing
or placing it under the court’s custody (De Pedro v. Romasan
Development Corporation)

Q. JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER

A. It is the power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong and by a sovereign
authority which organizes the court and defines the court and defines its
power.

It is conferred by law and determined by the allegations made in the

complaint (Morro, Sr. v. Occidental)

Q. JURISDICTION OVER ISSUES

A. conferred by consent either express/implied of the parties; requires an

examination of the pleadings

Q. LEGAL EFFECT/CONSEQUENCES OF A COURT ACTING OVER A CASE

WITHOUT JURISDICTION

A. When a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only
power it has is to dismiss the action, as an act it performs without
jurisdiction is null and void, and without any binding legal effects.
(Bilag v. Ay-ay)

 Creates no rights and produces no effect

 A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all
 All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it
have no legal effect

Q. HOW DO COURTS DETERMINE JURISDICTION?

A. Courts determine jurisdiction by taking into account the GROSS

VALUE of the estate concerned. JURISDICTION – determined by the
GROSS VALUE of the property

a. MTC – exclusive = gross value of property, NOT >300 000 or >400

000 (Metro Manila)
 b. RTC – more than the amount under MTC

 RULE: once the court assumes jurisdiction, it shall not be contested

so far as it depends on the decedent’s place of residence/location of
the estate
o EXCEPTIONS: may be assailed only in the ff.:
a. Appeal from the court – in the original case
b. Want of jurisdiction appears on the record

Q. HOW IS JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES ACQUIRED?

A. Acquired by their voluntary appearance in court and their submission

to its authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exerted over
their persons.

OR: By filing a petition in court

Q. CAN JURISDICTION BE A SUJECT OF A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT? A

CONTRACT? CAN IT BE BARGAINED?

A. No, jurisdiction cannot be a subject of a compromise agreement.

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law and cannot be acquired or waived by agreement of
the parties (Augustin International Center, Inc. v. Elfrenito Bartolome).

Q. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A CORRECT JUDGMENT BUT WITHOUT

JURISDICTION? SEE: Latest law on JURISDICTION.

A. A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject-

matter is void ab initio and not merely voidable. A voidable judgment
has the legal effect of a valid judgment until annulled and cannot be
attacked collaterally. A void judgment is of no effect. In the
contemplation of the law, it is non-existent and may be wholly
disregarded. The fact that it is void may therefore be urged in collateral
proceedings (Dominador Gomez v. Pedro Concepcion).

Q. JURISDICTION

A. a. power of the court to decide a case on the merits

b. place of trial

c. substantive

d. granted by law or by the constitution and cannot be waived or stipulated.

Q. VENUE

A. a. particular country/geographical area in which a court with jurisdiction

may hear/determine a case

b. procedural

c. (civil case) may be waived/stipulated by the parties

RULE 73: VENUE

CASES:

1. Garcia Fule v. CA, GR No. L-40502

FACTS:

1. VIRGINIA FULE filed a letter of administration with the CFI of

Laguna.
a. Contention: Amado Garcia died intestate, leaving real
and personal properties
b. Moved ex parte to be appointed as special
administratrix – granted by Judge Malvar

2. PRECIOSA GARCIA filed a motion for reconsideration

a. Contention: appointment of VF was issued without
jurisdiction
i. GROUNDS: No notice for letters of administration
is served for all persons interested in the estate
ii. (PRAYER) She should be preferred in the
appointment of administratrix
iii. VF, debtor of the estate of Amado G.
b. Received a Supplemental Petition for the appointment
of Regular Administrator
i. Contents: Amado G., elected Constitutional
Delegate for the 1st district of Laguna; last place of
residence: Calamba, Laguna
ii. Preciosa G was omitted as one of the legal heirs
3. Preciosa – moved to dismiss –
 a. GROUNDS: LACK OF JURISDICTION over the
parties/petition
b. Venue improperly laid
4. RTC: denied the motion of Preciosa

ISSUE: Whether the VENUE is improperly laid

RULING: YES, the VENUE was improperly laid. The death certificate of
Amado G. Garcia … how in bold documents that Amado G. Garcia's last
place of residence was at Quezon City. See: SECTION 1, R. 73

o “so far as it depends on the place of residence of the

decedent, or of the location of the state” – matter of venue; has
nothing to do with jurisdiction over the subject matter because
such existed/fixed before procedure in a given case began; just a
matter of method, of convenience to the parties

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS IN THIS CASE

o RESIDES:
a. personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual
residence or place of abode
b. signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay
c. requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place
i. DOMICILE: bodily presence in that place and also an
intention to make it one's domicile
d. No particular length of time; MORE THAN TEMPORARY

2. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. vs. Dumlao 206 SCRA 40

FACTS:

1. Ricardo Gonzalez (district manager of Shell PH, Mindanao)

filed a P. ("In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of the Deceased
Regino Canonoy, Petition for Letters of Administration, Ricardo
M. Gonzalez, Petitioner") with the CFI of Agusan del Norte and
Butuan City.
a. Contention: he be appointed judicial administrator
2. Judge Vicente Echavez set the hearing
3. Heirs of Regino Canonoy (Bonifacio Canonoy, jud.
administrator) opposed the letters of administration filed by
Gonzales.
 a. Contention: Gonzales – stranger to the intestate estate of
Regino; not creditor of the estate; resident of Davao City, not
Butuan City (unable to perform his duties)
4. RTC – APPOINTED Bonifacio Canonoy as administrator –
competent
5. SHELL filed its claim against Regino’s estate
a. Bonifacio moved for its dismissal
6. PRE-TRIAL – counsel for administrator filed a motion to
dismiss the case (Shell’s claim)
a. Contention: court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter and nature – Gonzales not the interested person
contemplated under Rule 79, section 2
7. SHELL: Defense – Court has jurisdiction over the case to issue
letters of admin to Gonzales – his interest is not a
jurisdictional fact (a condition precedent to the decision-
maker's exercise of jurisdiction)
8. Case dismissed
9. SHELL – FILED P. FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45

ISSUE: Whether the TC has jurisdiction over the case

RULING: YES, p. granted. The trial court complied with Section 3, Rule
79 of the Rules of Court by issuing the Order dated 27 January 1973. At
the initial hearing on 25 July 1973, petitioner Gonzalez established
the jurisdictional requirements by submitting in evidence proof of
publication and service of notices of the petition. Thereafter, it heard
the evidence on the qualifications and competence of Bonifacio Canonoy,
then appointed him as the administrator and finally directed that letters
of administration be issued to him, and that he takes his oath of office
after putting up a surety or property bond in the amount of P5,000.00.

Clearly, therefore, not only had the administrator and the rest of the
private respondents voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial
court, they even expressly affirmed and invoked such jurisdiction in
praying for reliefs and remedies in their favor

Doctrines on Jurisdiction: Tijam v. Sibonghanoy

 a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure

affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or
failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction. * affirmative relief - relief requested by the
 defendant to a lawsuit for injury which he or she claims to have
suffered during the same factual situation

 the question whether (sic) the court had jurisdiction either of

the subject-matter of the action or of the parties was not
important in such cases because the party is barred from such
conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is
valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason
that such a practice cannot be tolerated — obviously for
reasons of public policy.

 after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an

adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to
question the jurisdiction or power of the court

 it is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the
jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an
affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to
escape a penalty.

NOTE: The jurisdictional facts alluded to are: the death of the

testator, his residence at the time of his death in the province
where the probate court is sitting or, if he is an inhabitant of a
foreign country, his having left his estate in such province.

 Interested Party: one who would be benefited by the estate,

such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate,
such as a creditor; this interest must be material and direct,
not merely indirect or contingent. 

Q. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE PERSON DIES?

A: There is transmission of the rights to succession. Art. 777 of the NCC

provides that rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death
of the decedent

Q. HOW ARE PROPERTIES DISTRIBUTED?

A. Properties may be distributed by applying one of the modes of settlement of

estate which could be extra-judicial or judicial.

HOW ARE OBLIGATIONS SETTLED?

A.
Q. JUDICIAL v. EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

A.

 Exercise of Exclusive Jurisdiction

o Rule: the court with whom the petition is first filed must take
cognizance of the settlement of the estate … to the exclusion of all
other courts
o EXN: place of domicile/residence

 Extent of Jurisdiction of PROBATE COURT (limited jurisdiction)

o MAIN FUNCTION: settle and liquidate the estates of deceased,
summarily/process of administration
o Determines legal heirs
o ONLY has the power to liquidate/distribute conjugal partnership

o RULE: Determination of legal heirs are only made in the PROPER

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS IN court, not in an ordinary suit
o EXCEPTION: may be dispensed with for PRACTICALITY
 EX: when the parties had voluntarily submitted the issue to
the TC and already presented evidence re. the issue of
heirship
o RULE: Does not cover questions of ownership
o EXCEPTION: whether such property should be included in the
inventory

 SETTLEMENT OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY

o Rule: existence of creditor – the creditor must file a claim in the
settlement of estate of the decedent
 Rationale: upon death of one spouse, powers of
administration of surviving spouse ceases and passed to the
administrator appointed by probate court

 PRESUMPTION OF DEATH FOR PURPOSES OF SUCCESSION

o ABSENCE OF 10 YEARS
  Absent after the age of 75 – 5 years is enough

 EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT

o Cost-efficient
o Rationale: when a person dies without pending obligations, heirs
not bound to submit properties for judicial administration and the
appointment of an administrator are superfluous and unnecessary
proceedings
o if they disagree: parties file an ordinary action for Partition
o REQUISITES:
1. Decedent died intestate
2. No outstanding debts at time of settlement
3. Heirs of legal age; minors, rep. by judicial guardians/legal reps
4. Settlement in a public instrument/affidavit (sole heir) filed with
Reg. of Deeds
5. Publication in newspaper of gen. circulation in the province
once a week for 3 consec. Weeks
6. Filing of bond = value of personal property posted with Reg. of
Deeds