SPC FORNEL,Ma. Theresa A.

Subject: Civil Procedure 1

Professor: Judge Janice L. Andrade-Udarbe

Alferez v. Spouses Canencia

G.R. No. 244542, June 28,2021
Rule 73 Section 1. Section 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the decedents 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. 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.

FACTS

The case contains a dispute over a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage
regarding properties from the estate of Federico J. Alferez. Federico died without leaving a
will, and his estate consisted of several properties. MA. Concepcion Alferez, as Federico's
daughter and compulsory heir, filed a Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration for
the Intestate Estate of Federico Alferez. The court appointed Ma. Concepcion as the
administratrix of the estate. By reason of the outstanding debts incurred by the late Federico,
part of his estate needed to be sold to settle the same. Ma. Concepcion obtained special
powers of attorney from her siblings, Antonio, and Esperanza, authorizing her to sell their
respective portions of the properties. The court granted her the authority to sell the properties.
To finally settle Federico's outstanding debts, Ma. Concepcion, in behalf of the estate,
executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage13 (Deed) dated October 8, 1985 with
Spouses Exequiel and Celestina Canencia (respondents Canencia), Norma A. Alforque and
Teresa A. Alforque (respondents) covering the properties adjudicated to petitioners for a
consideration of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). After the sale was
consummated, Ma. Concepcion discovered that the entire property was included in the sale,
contrary to her understanding that only Federico's portion would be sold. She claimed that the
Deed was a temporary document and that a subsequent Deed would be prepared once the sale
was completed. She requested that the Deed remain unnotarized to protect their interests as
heirs. Ma. Concepcion later requested respondents Canencia to sign a Memorandum of
Agreement to express their earlier agreed terms. However, when the last installment for
Federico's portion was settled, Ma. Concepcion was informed by respondents Canencia that
they had already paid for the entire estate.
Thus, Ma. Concepcion filed an action for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of
Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage, Recovery of Possession, Damages, and
Attorney's Fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondents, declaring the
Deed of Sale valid. The RTC found that the Deed possessed all the elements of a valid
contract and that petitioners were barred from questioning its validity. The petitioner
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the case and declared the RTC's
judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. The CA mentioned Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court, which confers jurisdiction to the court that first takes cognizance of the settlement of
the estate. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in ruling that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on the issue of jurisdiction.
The CA erroneously dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction based on Rule 73, Section 1,
which pertains to venue and not jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
respondents on the issue of the validity of the Deed of Sale. The Deed of Sale, as the primary
document governing the transaction, clearly states that the petitioners sold, transferred, and
conveyed the properties to the respondents without any mention of their alleged intention to
sell only half of the properties. A contract is the law between the parties, and unless contrary
to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, the terms of the contract are
binding. The Court found no evidence to support the petitioners' claim that the respondents
acted in bad faith or that the Deed failed to reflect their true intention. The Supreme Court
reversed the decision of the CA and reinstated the judgment of the RTC, declaring the Deed
of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage valid.
DOCTRINE:
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred only by law, as
distinguished from venue, which is a purely procedural matter. The conferring law may be the
Constitution, or the statute organizing the court or tribunal, or the special or general statute
defining the jurisdiction of an existing court or tribunal, but it must be in force at the time of
the commencement of the action.
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. It is
conferred by law and determined by the allegation in the complaint. Venue on the other hand,
refers to the place geographical location where a case is filed. Objections to jurisdiction
cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Objection to venue,
however, must be raised at the earliest opportunity, or they will be deemed waived.