ROSA CAYETANO CUENCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. L-24742 October 26, 1 7!

NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of respondent Court of Appeals FACTS: Senator ariano !esus Cuenco died in anila" He was survived #$ his widow and two %inor sons& residin' in (ue)on Cit$& and children of the first %arria'e& residin' in Ce#u" *ourdes& one of the children fro% the first %arria'e& filed a Petition for *etters of Ad%inistration with the Court of First +nstance ,CF+- Ce#u& alle'in' that the senator died intestate in anila #ut a resident of Ce#u with properties in Ce#u and (ue)on Cit$" The petition still pendin' with CF+ Ce#u& Rosa Ca$etano Cuenco& the second wife ,widow-& filed a petition with CF+ Ri)al ,(ue)on Cit$- for the pro#ate of the last will and testa%ent& where she was na%ed e.ecutri." Rosa also filed an opposition and %otion to dis%iss in CF+ Ce#u #ut the said court held in a#e$ance resolution over the opposition until CF+ (ue)on Cit$ shall have acted on the pro#ate proceedin's" CF+ Ce#u& in effect deferred to the pro#ate proceedin's in the (ue)on Cit$ court" *ourdes filed an opposition and %otion to dis%iss in CF+ (ue)on Cit$& on 'round of lac/ of 0urisdiction and1or i%proper venue& considerin' that CF+ Ce#u alread$ ac2uired e.clusive 0urisdiction over the case" The opposition and %otion to dis%iss were denied" *ourdes filed special civil action of certiorari and prohi#ition with preli%inar$ in0unction with respondent CA" CA favored *ourdes holdin' that CF+ Ce#u had first ac2uired 0urisdiction" +SSUES: 3" 4hether or not CA erred in issuin' the writ of prohi#ition a'ainst (ue)on Cit$ court orderin' it to refrain fro% proceedin' with the testate proceedin's" 5" 4hether or not CF+ (ue)on Cit$ acted without 0urisdiction or 'rave a#use of discretion in ta/in' co'ni)ance and assu%in' e.clusive 0urisdiction over the pro#ate proceedin's in pursuance to CF+ Ce#u6s order e.pressl$ consentin' in deference to the precedence of pro#ate over intestate proceedin's" HE*7: 3" 8es" The Supre%e Court found that CA erred in law in issuin' the writ of prohi#ition a'ainst the (ue)on Cit$ court fro% proceedin' with the testate proceedin's and annullin' and settin' aside all its orders and actions& particularl$ its ad%ission to pro#ate of the last will and testa%ent of the deceased and appointin' petitioner9widow as e.ecutri. thereof without #ond pursuant to the deceased testator6s wish" Under Rule :;& the court first ta/in' co'ni)ance of the settle%ent of the estate of a decent& shall e.ercise 0urisdiction to the e.clusion of all other courts" The residence of the decent or the location of his estate is not an ele%ent of 0urisdiction over the su#0ect %atter #ut %erel$ of venue" Conversel$&

such co"rt, #$% "&o' (e$r')'* t+$t $ &et)t)o' ,or &rob$te o, t+e -ece-e't.s ($st /)(( +$s bee' &rese'te- )' $'ot+er co"rt where the decedent o#viousl$ had his con0u'al do%icile and resided with his survivin' widow and their %inor children& and that the alle'ation of the intestate petition #efore it statin' that the decedent died intestate %a$ #e actuall$ false& #$% -ec()'e to t$0e co*')1$'ce o, t+e &et)t)o' $'- +o(- t+e &et)t)o' be,ore )t )' $be%$'ce, $'- )'ste$- -e,er to t+e seco'- co"rt /+)c+ +$s be,ore )t t+e &et)t)o' ,or &rob$te o, t+e -ece-e't.s $((e*e- ($st /)((" +%plicit in the Ce#u court6s order was that if the will was dul$ ad%itted to pro#ate& #$ the (ue)on Cit$ court& then it would definitel$ decline to ta/e co'ni)ance of *ourdes6 intestate petition which would there#$ #e shown to #e false and i%proper& and leave the e.ercise of 0urisdiction to the (ue)on Cit$ court& to the e.clusion of all other courts" 5" No" Under the facts& the Ce#u court could not #e held to have acted without 0urisdiction or with 'rave a#use of 0urisdiction in declinin' to ta/e co'ni)ance of the intestate petition and deferrin' to the (ue)on Cit$ court" Necessaril$& neither could the (ue)on Cit$ court #e dee%ed to have acted without 0urisdiction in ta/in' co'ni)ance of and actin' on the pro#ate petition since under Rule :;& section 3& the Ce#u court %ust first ta/e co'ni)ance over the estate of the decedent and %ust e.ercise 0urisdiction to e.clude all other courts& which the Ce#u court declined to do" Further%ore& as is undisputed& said rule onl$ la$s down a rule of venue and the (ue)on Cit$ court undisputa#l$ had at least e2ual and coordinate 0urisdiction over the estate" NOTE ,additional info-:

Opposition to 0urisdiction of trial court in settle%ent proceedin's should #e #$ appeal: Under Rule :;& section 3 itself& the (ue)on Cit$ court6s assu%ption of 0urisdiction over the decedent6s estate on the #asis of the will dul$ presented for pro#ate #$ petitioner9widow and findin' that (ue)on Cit$ was the first choice of residence of the decedent& who had his con0u'al ho%e and do%icile therein < with the deference in co%it$ dul$ 'iven #$ the Ce#u court < could not #e contested e.cept #$ appeal fro% said court in the ori'inal case e.cept when want of 0urisdiction appears on the record" 4hen proceedin's for settle%ent of estate will not #e annulled even if court had i%proper venue: the %ischievous effect in the ad%inistration of 0ustice= of considerin' the 2uestion of residence as affectin' the 0urisdiction of the trial court and annullin' the whole proceedin's onl$ to start all over a'ain the sa%e proceedin's #efore another court of the sa%e ran/ in another province is too o#vious to re2uire co%%ent" +t would #e an unfair i%position upon petitioner as the one na%ed and entitled to #e e.ecutri. of the decedent6s last will and settle his estate in accordance therewith& and a disre'ard of her ri'hts under the rule on venue and the law on 0urisdiction to re2uire her to spend %uch %ore ti%e& %one$ and effort to have to 'o fro% (ue)on Cit$ to the Ce#u court ever$ti%e she has an i%portant %atter of the estate to ta/e up with the pro#ate court"