De Egurrola, Kevin Marc C.

Special Proceedings (Thursday 7:30 - 9:30)

COMPARATIVE CASE ANALYSIS

1. ) EUSEDIO vs. EUSIDEO, 100 Phil. 593 and FULE vs. CA L -

40502

In the Matter of the Intestate of the deceased Andres Eusebio. EUGENIO

EUSEBIO, petitioner-appellee, vs. AMANDA EUSEBIO, VIRGINIA EUSEBIO, JUAN
EUSEBIO, DELFIN EUSEBIO, VICENTE EUSEBIO, and CARLOS EUSEBIO,
oppositor-appellant

Facts:
Eugenio Eusebio filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for his appointment as
administrator of the estate of his father, Andres Eusebio. He alleged that his father, who
died on November 28, 1952, resided in Quezon City. Eugenio’s siblings (Amanda,
Virginia, Juan, Delfin, Vicente and Carlos), stating that they are illegitimate children of
Andres, opposed the petition and alleged that Andres was domiciled in San Fernando,
Pampanga. They prayed that the case be dismissed upon the ground that venue had
been improperly laid.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal granted Eugenio’s petition and overruled his
siblings’ objection.

Issue:

Whether venue had been properly laid in Rizal?

Held:

No.

Don Andres Eusebio up to October 29, 1952, was and had always been domiciled in
San Fernando, Pampanga. He only bought a house and lot at 889-A Espana Extension,
Quezon City because his son, Dr. Jesus Eusebio, who treated him, resided at No. 41 P.
Florentino St., Quezon City. Even before he was able to transfer to the house he
bought, Andres suffered a stroke and was forced to live in his son’s residence. It is well
settled that “domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a place merely for one
own’s health” even if coupled with “knowledge that one will never again be able, on
account of illness, to return home. Having resided for over seventy years in Pampanga,
the presumption is that Andres retained such domicile.

Andres had no intention of staying in Quezon City permanently. There is no direct

evidence of such intent – Andres did not manifest his desire to live in Quezon City
indefinitely; Eugenio did not testify thereon; and Dr. Jesus Eusebio was not presented to
testify on the matter. Andres did not part with, or alienate, his house in San Fernando,
Pampanga. Some of his children remained in that municipality. In the deed of sale of his
house at 889 – A Espana Ext., Andres gave San Fernando, Pampanga, as his
residence. The marriage contract signed by Andres when he was married in articulo
mortis to Concepcion Villanueva two days prior to his death stated that his residence is
San Fernando, Pampanga.

The requisites for a change of domicile include (1) capacity to choose and freedom of
choice, (2) physical presence at the place chosen, (3) intention to stay therein
permanently. Although Andres complied with the first two requisites, there is no change
of domicile because the third requisite is absent.

Anent the contention that appellants submitted themselves to the authority of the CFI of
Rizal because they introduced evidence on the residence of the decedent, it must be
noted that appellants specifically made of record that they were NOT submitting
themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, except for the purpose only of assailing the
same.

In sum, the Court found that Andres was, at the time of his death, domiciled in San
Fernando, Pampanga; that the CFI of Rizal had no authority, therefore, to appoint an
administrator of the estate of the deceased, the venue having been laid improperly.
VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE and HONORABLE SEVERO A. MALVAR, Presiding Judge,
Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch VI, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS * , PRECIOSA B. GARCIA and AGUSTINA B. GARCIA,
respondents.

Facts:

Virginia G. Fule filed with the CFI of Laguna a petition for letters of administration
alleging “that on April 26, 1973, Amado G. Garcia, a property owner of Calamba,
Laguna, died intestate in the City of Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties
in Calamba, Laguna, and in other places, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.”
At the same time, she moved ex parte for her appointment as special administratix over
the estate. Judge Malvar granted the motion.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa B. Garcia, the surviving spouse of
the deceased, contending that the decedent “resided” in Quezon City for 3 months
before his death as shown by his death certificate and therefore have an improper
venue, and the Court of FIrst Instance of Calamba lacks jurisdiction over the petition.

The Court of FIrst Instance denied the motion while the Court of Appeals reversed and
affirmed making Preciosa the administratix.

Issues:

a.) Are venue and jurisdiction the same? How can it be determined in the present case?

b.) What does the word “resides” in Revised Rules of Court Rule 73 Section 1 Mean?

Held:

1.) No, jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case base
on the merits or the substance of the facts. It is a substantive aspect of the trial
proceeding. It is granted by law or by the constitution and cannot be waived or
stipulated.

On the other hand, Rule 4 of Rules of Court define venue as the proper court which
has jurisdiction over the area wherein real property involved or a portion thereof is
situated. Venue is the location of the court with jurisdiction. It is more on convenience
purposes. It’s more on procedural aspect of the case. In some cases it may be waived
or stipulated by the parties.
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: “If the decedent 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.

2.) “Resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It
signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense,
the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or
domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place,
while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it
one’s domicile. No particular length of time of residence is required though; however,
the residence must be more than temporary.

Comparative analysis:

In the case of Eusebio vs. Eusebio, Andres Eusebio never had the intention of changing
his residence or domicile in Quezon City. He was forced to stay in Quezon City because
of his heart condition. The venue for the settlement of his estate should have been in
Pampanga because it is his domicile or primary residence because a domicile once
acquired is retained until a new domicile is gained. It is not changed by presence in a
place for one’s own health.

On the other hand, in the case of Fule vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled
that the last place of residence of the deceased should be the venue of the court.
Amado G. Garcia was in Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna base on his death
certificate. A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at the
time of his death. Since his death certificate proved the fact that he resides in Quezon
City, such province has jurisdiction over the case.

In both cases, we tackle the discussion of the difference of domicile and residence.
"actual residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term
"resides," like the terms "residing" and "residence," is elastic and should be interpreted
in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. In the
application of venue statutes and rules — Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of
Court is of such nature — residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. Even
where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence
and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the
terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes using venue, the
terms are synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In
other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning,
the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of
abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular
sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal
residence or domicile. 9 Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in
a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an
intention to make it one's domicile. 10 No particular length of time of residence is
required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary.