3/3/2019 17-33_specpro_biag - Google Docs
TOPIC: Other special proceedings non- forum shopping; and (3) pe oner failed to
(17) SPOUSES TOPACIO V. BANKO FILIPINO
SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK
Quick facts:
Sps. Topacio obtained a P400,000 loan from Banco
Filipino. Failure to pay, the bank extra-judicially
foreclosed their REM and eventually auc oned
property. Bank filed writ of possession. Sps filed
mo on to set aside auc on sale and writ of
possession. RTC issued TRO and writ of PI from
implemen ng the writ of possession. A er more
than 2 years, Judge dismissed bank’s pe on for
“failure to prosecute”. No copy of this decision was
served on respondent bank. 6 years later, bank filed
a mo on to clarify the order of dismissal and moved
for issuance of an alias writ of possession. Sps.
Topacio claims that dismissal order has long been
final and executory and alias writ should be made in
a separate mo on. Also contend that writ of
possession may no longer be enforced by a mere
mo on, but by a separate ac on, considering that
more than five years had elapsed from its issuance,
pursuant to Sec on 6, Rule 39.
Doctrine:
Writ of possession may s ll be enforced upon mo on
of the applicant a er the lapse of more than five (5)
years from the me of its issuance because a party in
a civil ac on must immediately enforce a judgment
that is secured as against the adverse party, and his
failure to act to enforce the same within a
reasonable me as provided in the Rules makes the
decision unenforceable against the losing party.
TOPIC: Sec. 2, Rule 72 - Applicability of Rules of Civil
Ac ons
(18) SHEKER V. ESTATE OF ALICE O. SHEKER, ET. A.L ,
Quick facts:
The RTC admi ed to probate the holographic will of
Alice O. Sheker and therea er issued an order for all
the creditors to file their respec ve claims against
the estate. Pe oner filed on October 7, 2002 a
con ngent claim for agent's commission. The
executrix of the Estate of Alice O. Sheker
(respondent) moved for the dismissal of said money
claim against the estate on the grounds that (1) the
requisite docket fee, as prescribed in Sec on 7(a),
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, had not been paid;
(2) pe oner failed to a ach a cer fica on against
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ohhI5YynJ3Pxla53_s7raqeRetwid9sXBRMKGVktbUE/edit
a ach a wri en explana on why the money claim
was not filed and served personally.
Doctrine:
The absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary
ac ons may be applied in special proceedings as
much as possible and where doing so would not
pose an obstacle to said proceedings.
TOPIC: Se lement of Estate of Deceased Persons -
[Rules 73 to 90]
(19) LIMJOCO V. INTESTATE ESTATE OF PEDRO O.
FRAGANTE
Quick facts:
Deceased Pedro Fragante applied for a cer ficate of
public convenience (CPC) to install, maintain and
operate an ice plant in San Juan, Rizal during his
life me. Public Service Commission deemed fit to
issue the
cer ficate of public convenience to the Intestate
Estate of the Pedro Fragante and authorizing said
Intestate Estate through its Special or Judicial
Administrator to maintain and operate an ice plant.
Limjoco contends that it was error on the part of the
Commission to allow the subs tu on of the legal
representa ve of the estate of Pedro Fragante for
the la er as party applicant in the case pending
before the Commission, and in subsequently gran ng
to said estate the cer ficate applied for.
Doctrine:
The estate of a decedent is a person in legal
contempla on. The
word "person" in its legal significa on, is a generic
term, and includes ar ficial as well as natural
persons xxx the estate of a decedent should be
regarded as an ar ficial person. It is the crea on of
law for the purpose of enabling a disposi on of the
assets to be properly made, and, although natural
persons as heirs, devisees, or creditors, have an
interest in the property, the ar ficial creature is a
dis nct legal en ty.
TOPIC: Se lement of Estate of Deceased Persons -
[Rules 73 to 90]: The estate as a fic onal person
(20) VENTURA V. MILITANTE, ET. AL.
Quick facts:
1/5
3/3/2019 17-33_specpro_biag - Google Docs
Respondent Uy filed a Complaint for a Sum of Money
and Damages against Pe oner Ventura (wife of
Ngo) represen ng the estate of Carlos Ngo.
Pe oner moved to dismiss the complaint sta ng
that “the estate of Carlos Ngo has no legal
personality,” the same being “neither a natural nor
legal person in contemp on of law.”
Pe oner filed a MR. She claimed that the public
respondent never acquired jurisdic on over the
subject ma er of the case which, being an ac on to
recover a sum of money from a deceased person,
may only be heard by a probate court.
Doctrine:
In a suit or proceeding in personam of an adversary
character, the court can acquire no jurisdic on for
the purpose of trial or judgment un l a party
defendant who actually or legally exists and is legally
capable of being sued, is brought before it. It has
even been held that the ques on of the legal
personality of a party defendant is a ques on of
substance going to the jurisdic on of the court and
not one of procedure.
TOPIC: Se lement of Estate of Deceased Persons -
[Rules 73 to 90]; Se lement by Judicial
Administra on is an Ac on in rem
(21) ERMAC, ET. AL. V. MEDELO, ET. A
Quick facts:
Respondent Francisco Provido filed a Pe on for the
probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late
Soledad Provido Elevencionado alleging that he was
the heir of the decedent and the executor of her will.
RTC allowed the probate of the will and directed the
issuance of le ers testamentary to respondent.
Pe oners a er 4 months filed a mo on for the
reopening of the probate proceedings. They contend
that RTC did not acquire jurisdic on over the pe on
due to non-payment of the correct docket fees,
defec ve publica on, and lack
of no ce to the other heirs. RTC denied mo on.
Doctrine:
A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem,
such that with the corresponding publica on of the
pe on the court's jurisdic on extends to all persons
interested in said will or in the se lement of the
estate of the decedent. Thus, even though
pe oners were not men oned in the pe on for
probate, they eventually became par es thereto as a
consequence of the publica on of the no ce of
hearing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ohhI5YynJ3Pxla53_s7raqeRetwid9sXBRMKGVktbUE/edit
TOPIC: Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate Proceedings -
Rule 73; How jurisdic on is acquired in estate
proceedings
(23) DE GUZMAN V. ANGELES ET AL.
Quick facts:
Elaine G. de Guzman filed for the se lement of the
intestate estate of Manolito de Guzman before the
RTC. Elaine filed a mo on for writ of possession over
5 vehicles in the name of Manolito de Guzman which
are in the possession of the Elaine’s father-in- law
pe oner Pedro de Guzman. Elaine filed her
"Ex-Parte Mo on to Appoint Pe oner as Special
Administratrix of the Estate of Manolito de Guzman”
and RTC granted such mo on. This pe on was
therefore filed by Pedro De Guzman to annul the RTC
orders which granted the mo on for the
appointment of a special administrator, mo on for
the issuance of a writ of possession, and the mo on
for assistance to preserve estate.
Doctrine:
Before a probate court can act on and/or grant
mo ons for the appointment of a special
administrator, for the issuance of a writ of
possession of alleged proper es of the deceased
person, and for assistance
to preserve the estate in a pe on for the se lement
of the intestate estate, the court must have caused
no ce to be served upon all interested par es
pursuant to sec on 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
TOPIC: B. Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate
Proceedings - Rule 73; When the deceased is a
Muslim
(24) MUSA, ET. AL. V. HON MOSON, ET. AL.,
Quick facts:
Jamiri Musa, a Muslim, who passed away had six (6)
wives, three (3) of whom he later divorced, and
twenty three (23) children. Hadji Jahara ABDURAHIM
is one of the three (3) surviving widows, filed a "Joint
Pe on for the Administra on and Se lement of the
Intestate Estate of the Late Jamiri Musa and
Liquida on of Conjugal Partnership," before the
Shari'a District Court, Fi h Shari'a District, with
sta on at Cotabato City. Oppositors were WAHIDA
and SALMA, the divorced wives, who also claim to be
2/5
3/3/2019 17-33_specpro_biag - Google Docs
widows of the deceased. They alleged that venue
was improperly laid. That the proper es of the
decedent located outside Maguindanao were
beyond the jurisdic on of the Shari'a District Court,
Fi h Shari'a District.
Doctrine:
The residence of the deceased in an estate
proceeding is not an element of jurisdic on over the
subject ma er but merely of venue. The law of
jurisdic on confers upon Courts of First Instance
(now Regional Trial Courts) jurisdic on over all
probate cases independently of the place of
residence of the deceased. Venue, therefore,
ordinarily could be at either place of the decedent's
residence, i.e., Maguindanao or Davao City, but for
the provisions of the Muslim Code ves ng exclusive
original jurisdic on, in ma ers of disposi on and
se lement of estates of deceased Muslims, in Shari'a
District Courts.
TOPIC: B. Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate
Proceedings - Rule 73; When the deceased is a
Muslim
(25) LUISA KHO MONTAÑER, ET AL. VS. SHARI'A
DISTRICT COURT, ETC. ET AL.,
Quick facts:
Pe oner Luisa, a Roman Catholic, was married to
Alejandro who had died. Private respondents Liling
and her daughter, Almahleen, both Muslims, filed a
“Complaint” for the judicial par on of proper es
before the Shari’a District Court. This complaint was
docketed as a “Special Civil Ac on” and impleaded
the Estates and Proper es of Late Alejandro
Montañer, Sr. claiming that they are his widow and
daughter respec vely. The Shari’a District Court
dismissed respondent’s complaint, holding that
Alejandro was not a Muslim, and its jurisdic on
extends only to the se lement and distribu on of
the estate of deceased Muslims. The Shari’a District
Court reconsidered its order of dismissal. Pet. argue
that the proceeding before the Shari’a District Court
is an ordinary civil ac on against a deceased person
and that the Estates of Late Alejandro is not a natural
or juridical person with capacity to be sued.
Furthermore, they argue that the prohibi on against
a decedent or his estate from being a party
defendant in a civil ac on applies to a special
proceeding such as the se lement of the estate of
the deceased.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ohhI5YynJ3Pxla53_s7raqeRetwid9sXBRMKGVktbUE/edit
Doctrine:
Shari’a District Court is not deprived of jurisdic on
simply because pe oners raised as a defense the
allega on that the deceased is not a Muslim. The
Shari’a District Court has the authority to hear and
receive evidence to determine whether it has
jurisdic on, which requires an a priori determina on
that the deceased is a Muslim. If a er hearing, the
Shari’a District Court determines that the deceased
was not in fact a Muslim, the district court should
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdic on.
TOPIC: Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate Proceedings -
Rule 73; Meaning of term “resides”
(26) QUIAZON V. MA. LOURDES BELEN
Quick facts:
Eliseo died intestate. Elise Quiazon, represented by
her mother, Lourdes Belen filed a Pe on for Le ers
of Administra on before the RTC of Las Piñas City.
Elise was claiming that she is the natural child of
Eliseo and that she impugned the validity of Eliseo’s
marriage to another woman named Amelia by
claiming that it was bigamous because she is
married. The pe on for le ers of administra on
was opposed by Amelia et al. sta ng that such
pe on was filed in the wrong venue – she filed an
MTD for improper venue. Amelia et al. stated that
Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las
Pinas City at the me of his death. RTC: venue was
proper. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Doctrine:
The term “residence” as contemplated in Rule 71
Sec on 1 connotes ACTUAL RESIDENCE, and not legal
residence. "Resides" should be viewed or understood
in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or
physical habita on of a person, actual residence or
place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a
place and actual stay thereat.
TOPIC: Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate Proceedings -
Rule 73; Meaning of term “resides”
(27) SALUDO, JR. V. AMERICAN EXPRESS, INTL., INC.,
ET. AL.,
Quick facts:
Congressman Saludo filed a COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES against AMEX and its officers – the
3/5
3/3/2019 17-33_specpro_biag - Google Docs
country manager and the head of opera ons with
the RTC of Maasin, Southern Leyte. Saludo alleges
that he is a resident of Ichon, Macrohon, Southern
Leyte. The complaint’s cause of ac on stemmed
from the alleged wrongful dishonor of pe oner
Saludo’s AMEX credit card and the supplementary
card issued to his daughter. AMEX in its answer, as
affirma ve defense, says that the complaint should
be dismissed on the ground that venue was
improperly laid because none of the par es was a
resident of Leyte, alleging that even Saludo himself
was not a resident of Leyte. RTC: Favored Saludo,
ruled that venue was proper since a man can have
but one domicile but he can have numerous places
of residence. CA: everses RTC. Favors AMEX. Venue
improperly laid. Declared that Saludo was not a
resident of Leyte.
Doctrine:
The term “residence” as employed in the rule on
venue on personal ac ons filed with the courts of
first instance means the place of abode whether
permanent or temporary, of the plain ff or the
defendant, as dis nguished from “domicile” which
denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when
absent, one has the inten on of returning.
TOPIC: Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate Proceedings -
Rule 73; Meaning of term “resides”
(28) FULE, ET AL V. C.A., ET AL
***Repeat case; CASE NO. 15***
TOPIC: Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate Proceedings -
Rule 73; Meaning of term “resides”
(29) IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF
THE DECEASED ANDRES
EUSEBIO
Quick facts:
Eugenio Eusebio filed with CFI of Rizal a pe on for
his appointment as administrator of the estate of his
father, Andres Eusebio. Illegi mate children opposed
to the pe on sta ng that Andres was domiciled in
San Fernando, Pampanga, and praying, therefore,
that the case be dismissed upon the ground that
venue had been improperly filed. LC overruled the
objec on and granted the pe on. It held that the
decedent's intent to stay permanently in Quezon City
is "manifest" from the acquisi on of said property
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ohhI5YynJ3Pxla53_s7raqeRetwid9sXBRMKGVktbUE/edit
and the transfer of his belonging thereto. Andres had
always been domiciled in San Fernando Pampanga.
Doctrine:
If proceedings for the se lement of the estate of a
deceased resident are ins tuted in two or more
courts, and the ques on of venue is raised before
the same, the court in which the first case was filed
shall have exclusive jurisdic on to decide said issue.
Should it be decided, in the proceedings before the
said court, that venue had been improperly laid, the
case pending therein should be dismissed and the
corresponding proceedings may, therea er, be
ini ated in the proper court.
TOPIC: Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate Proceedings -
Rule 73; Meaning of term “resides”
(30) IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF
THE LATE KAW SINGCO (ALIAS CO CHI SENG). SY OA,
ADMINISTRATRIX-APPELLEE, VS. CO HO
Quick facts:
Sy Oa is the administratrix of the intestate estate of
Kaw Singco. During the intestate proceedings, Co Ho
filed an opposi on alleging that the court has no
jurisdic on over the subject-ma er because the
proceedings where not filed in the province where
the deceased last resided. The Supreme Court held
that the ques on involved in the case was a ques on
on venue which in turn hinges on a ques on on fact
and not on jurisdic on over the subject-ma er. Co
Ho seeks reconsidera on.
Doctrine:
In probate cases, the place of residence of the
deceased is regarded as a ques on of jurisdic on
over the subject-ma er. Sec on 600 of Act. No. 190
(The Code of Civil Procedure), provides that the
estate of a deceased person shall be se led in the
province where he had last resided could not have
been intended as defining the jurisdic on of the
probate court over the subject- ma er, because such
legal provision is contained in law of procedure
dealing merely with procedural ma ers, and, as the
Supreme Court have said me and again, procedure
is one thing and jurisdic on over the subject ma er
is another.
TOPIC: Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate Proceedings -
Rule 73; Meaning of term “resides”
4/5
3/3/2019 17-33_specpro_biag - Google Docs

(31) IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF

THE DECEASED ANDRES
EUSEBIO

***Repeat case; CASE NO. 29***

TOPIC: Venue and Jurisdic on in Estate Proceedings -

Rule 73; Exclusionary Rule

(32 and 33) CUENCO V. CA

Quick facts:
Jesus Cuenco died and was survived by his widow
(Pe oner Rosa) and their 2 minor sons, and by his
children from his first marriage. Lourdes Cuenco
(One of the Respondents) filed a Pe on for Le ers
of Administra on with CFI Cebu alleging that Cuenco
died intestate in Manila; that he was a resident of
Cebu; and le real and personal proper es in Cebu
and Quezon City. Rosa opposed. Cebu court issued
an order holding the resolu on on pe oner’s MTD
un l a er the Court of First Instance of Quezon City
shall have acted on the pe on for probate.
Respondents filed instead an MTD and opposi on in
QC RTC. The QC court denied the mo on to dismiss,
sta ng that "precedence of probate proceeding over
an intestate proceeding." CA fixed venue of probate
proceedings. CA stated that Quezon City Court have
no authority in issuing such Order when the
se lement of estate was first filed in the Cebu Court.

Doctrine:
The Rule, (Sec. 1, Rule 73) does not state that the
Court whom the estate or intestate pe on is first
filed acquires exclusive jurisdic on. Rather, the Rule
provides that the court first taking cognizance of the
se lement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise
jurisdic on to the exclusion of all other courts. It
indicates that the court with whom the pe on is
first filed, must also first take cognizance of the
se lement of the estate in order to exercise
jurisdic on over it to the exclusion of all other
courts.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ohhI5YynJ3Pxla53_s7raqeRetwid9sXBRMKGVktbUE/edit 5/5