Rodriguez v.

De Borja (1966) Lau Oarde

Special Proceedings – 174.019 A2025

Probate of will
Case Name Rodriguez v. De Borja (1966)
Topic Rules Conferring Power over Another’s Property > Settlement of
Estate of Deceased Persons > Venue and Jurisdiction
Case No. | Date G.R. No. L-21993 | June 21, 1966
Petitioner/s ANGELA RODRIGUEZ, MARIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
Respondent/s HON. JUAN DE BORJA (Judge, CFI of Bulacan Br. III)
ANATOLIA PANGILINAN and ADELAIDA JACALAN
Ponente Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Case Summary
On March 12, 1963, etitioners filed a petition for the settlement of intestate estate of
Fr. Rodriguez, alleging, among others, that he died intestate and was a resident of
Parañaque, Rizal. On the same day, Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan filed
a petition in CFI Bulacan for the probate of the will of Fr. Rodriguez delivered by
them on March 4, 1963. Petitioners argue that since the intestate proceedings in the
CFI of Rizal was filed at 8:00 A.M. on March 12, 1963 while the petition for probate
was filed in the CFI of Bulacan at 11:00 A.M. on the same date, the latter Court has
no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for probate

W/N the CFI of Bulacan acquired jurisdiction over the petition for
probate: YES.

The Court said that the jurisdiction of CFI Bulacan became vested upon delivery of
the will on March 4, 1963. Upon the will being deposited, the Court could, motu
proprio, have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will, and issued
the corresponding notices. According to Rule 73, Section 3, ROC, the court is entitled
to assume jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts since the estate
proceedings was initiated in the Bulacan CFI ahead of any other. Also, the
petitioners’ intestate proceedings should fail for two reasons: (1) commencing
intestate proceedings in Rizal, after they had learned of the delivery of the decedent's
will to the Court of Bulacan, was in bad faith, patently done with a view to divesting
the latter court of the precedence awarded it by the Rules; and (2) in our system of
civil law, intestate succession is only subsidiary or subordinate to the testate since
intestacy only takes place in the absence of a valid operative will.
Decision
Writ of certiorari applied for is denied. CFI Bulacan acquired jurisdiction.
Doctrine
● The power to settle decedent's estates is conferred by law upon all courts of first
instance, and the domicile of the testator only affects the venue but not the
jurisdiction of the Court.
● The Court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent
shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts (Sec. 1, Rule 73).

Page 1 of 3
Rodriguez v. De Borja (1966) Lau Oarde
Special Proceedings – 174.019 A2025

Relevant Facts
● Rev. Fr. Celestino Rodriguez died on February 12, 1963 in the City of Manila.
Anatolia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan delivered to the Clerk of Court of
Bulacan a purported last will and testament of Fr. Rodriguez.
● On March 12, 1963, petitioners filed a petition for the settlement of intestate
estate of Fr. Rodriguez, alleging, among others, that he died intestate and was
a resident of Parañaque, Rizal. It also prayed for the appointment of Maria as
Special Administratrix.
● On the same day, Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan filed a petition in
CFI Bulacan for the probate of the will delivered by them on March 4, 1963. It
alleged that: (1) he was a parish priest of the Catholic Church in Hagonoy,
Bulacan in the period 1930-1963; (2) he was buried in Parañaque; and (3) he
left real properties in Rizal, Cavite, Quezo City and Bulacan.
● Petitioners Rodriguezes filed a petition in the SC for a writ of certiorari and
prohibition to the CFI Bulacan, for its refusal to grant their motion to dismiss
Special Proceeding No. 1331.
● The petitioners argue that since the intestate proceedings in the CFI of Rizal
was filed at 8:00 A.M. on March 12, 1963 while the petition for probate was filed
in the CFI of Bulacan at 11:00 A.M. on the same date, the latter Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition for probate citing Ongsingco Vda. de Borja
vs. Tan and De Borja.

Issue/s, Held and Ratio

W/N the CFI of Bulacan acquired jurisdiction over the Yes
petition for probate:

The jurisdiction of CFI Bulacan became vested upon delivery of the will
on March 4, 1963.
● Even if no petition for allowance of the will was filed until later, CFI Bulacan
acquired jurisdiction. Upon the will being deposited, the Court could, motu
proprio, have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will, and
issued the corresponding notices conformably to what is prescribed by Sec. 3,
Rule 76, ROC.
● Where the petition for probate is made after the deposits of the will, the petition
is deemed to relate back to the time when the will was delivered.
● Since the testament of Fr. Rodriguez was submitted and delivered to CFI
Bulacan on March 4, while petitioners initiated intestate proceedings in the CFI
of Rizal on March 12 or 8 days later, the precedence and exclusive jurisdiction
of the Bulacan court is incontestable.

Page 2 of 3
Rodriguez v. De Borja (1966) Lau Oarde
Special Proceedings – 174.019 A2025

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is different from venue.

● Petitioners allege that the Bulacan court did not have jurisdiction because the
decedent was domiciled in Rizal province.
● However, even if we consider that he retained throughout some animus
revertendi to the place of his birth in Parañaque, Rizal, that detail would not
imply that the Bulacan court lacked jurisdiction. As ruled in previous decisions,
the power to settle decedent's estates is conferred by law upon all courts of first
instance, and the domicile of the testator only affects the venue but not the
jurisdiction of the Court.
● Procedure is one thing and jurisdiction over the subject-matter is another. The
law of jurisdiction, Act No. 136, Section 56, No. 5 confers upon Courts of First
Instance jurisdiction over all probate cases independently of the place of
residence of the deceased.
● The estate proceedings having been initiated in the Bulacan CFI ahead of any
other, that court is entitled to assume jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
courts, according to Rule 73, Section 3, ROC.

Petitioners were in bad faith; testate succession is preferred.

● There are two reasons that militate against the success of petitioners:
o First, commencing intestate proceedings in Rizal, after they had learned
of the delivery of the decedent's will to the Court of Bulacan, was in bad
faith, patently done with a view to divesting the latter court of the
precedence awarded it by the Rules.
o Second, in our system of civil law, intestate succession is only subsidiary
or subordinate to the testate since intestacy only takes place in the
absence of a valid operative will.
● Only after final decision as to the nullity of testate succession could an intestate
succession be instituted in the form of pre- established action. The institution
of intestacy proceedings in Rizal may not thus proceed while the probate of the
purported will of Father Rodriguez is pending.

Ruling
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari applied for is denied. Costs against petitioners
Rodriguez.

Laws Cited
● ROC, Rule 73, Section 3
○ The Court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a
decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.

Page 3 of 3