FACTS:

Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila. He was survived by his widow and two minor
sons, residing in Quezon City, and children of the first marriage, residing in Cebu. Lourdes,
one of the children from the first marriage, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration with
the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cebu, alleging that the senator died intestate in Manila but a
resident of Cebu with properties in Cebu and Quezon City.
The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Cayetano Cuenco, the second wife, filed a
petition with CFI Rizal for the probate of the last will and testament, where she was named
executrix. Rosa also filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but this court held
in abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI Quezon shall have acted on the probate
proceedings.
Lourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon, on ground of lack of
jurisdiction and/or improper venue, considering that CFI Cebu already acquired exclusive
jurisdiction over the case. The opposition and motion to dismiss were denied. Upon appeal
CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a writ of prohibition to CFI Quezon.
ISSUEs:
Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of prohibition
Whether or not CFI Quezon acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in taking
cognizance and assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the probate proceedings in pursuance
to CFI Cebu's order expressly consenting in deference to the precedence of probate over
intestate proceedings
HELD:
The Supreme Court found that CA erred in law in issuing the writ of prohibition against the
Quezon City court from proceeding with the testate proceedings and annulling and setting
aside all its orders and actions, particularly its admission to probate of the last will and
testament of the deceased and appointing petitioner-widow as executrix thereof without
bond pursuant to the deceased testator's wish.
On Venue and Jurisdiction
Under Rule 73, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decent,
shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
The residence of the decent or the location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction
over the subject matter but merely of venue. If this were otherwise, it would affect the
prompt administration of justice.
The court with whom the petition is first filed must also first take cognizance of the
settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other
courts.
__________________
Facts of the Case:
Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain and he left reasonable properties in thePhilippines. Vicente
Uriarte, who is claiming to be the son and sole heir of thedeceased, filed a petition for the

intestate settlement of the estate of the deceased inthe Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental. However, said petition was opposed bythe nephews of Juan stating that there is
a valid will left by the deceased in Spain, acopy of which is being requested. Then, the
nephews filed a settlement of the estate inthe court of Manila, on the basis of the alleged
will of the deceased.Vicente filed an opposition to the settlement of estate in the court of
Manilastating that the court of Negros Occidental has already acquired original jurisdiction
over the case. The opposition of Vicente was dismissed together with the intestate
settlementIn the CFI of Negros.Hence, Vicente filed a petition for certiorari questioning the
dismissal of theintestate settlement in the CFI of Negros.
Issue:
Whether or not the intestate settlement should be dismissed.
Ruling of the Case:
The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the intestate proceeding is proper.Under the
Rules on the settlement of estate of the deceased person, testateproceedings enjoy priority
over intestate proceedings. Therefore, in case intestatesettlement was filed prior to the
finding of the will of the deceased, then the intestateproceedings shall be dismissed to give
priority to the testate proceeding.
________________
HEIRS OF DORONIO vs. HEIRS OF DORONIO[2008]
Facts
:Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante deceased,were the registered owners of a
parcel of land located.
Marcelino Doronio and Fortunato Doronio, deceased, were the children of the spouses and
the parties in this case aretheir heirs.
Petitioners are the heirs of Marcelino Doronio, while respondents are the heirs of Fortunato
Doronio.
Eager to obtain the entire property, the heirs of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico filed
before the RTC inUrdaneta, Pangasinana petition "For the Registration of a Private Deed of
Donation"docketed as Petition Case No. U-920.
No respondents were named in the said petition although notices of hearing were posted on
the bulletin boards of Barangay Cabalitaan, Municipalities of Asingan and Lingayen. During
the hearings, no one interposed an objection tothe petition. After the RTC ordered a general
default, the petition was eventually granted on September 22, 1993.

This led to the registration of the deed of donation, cancellation of OCT No. 352 and issuance
of anew TransferCertificate of Title (TCT) No. 44481 in the names of Marcelino Doronio and
Veronica Pico. Thus, the entire property was titled in the names of petitioners predecessors.
On April 28, 1994,the heirs of Fortunato Doronio filed a pleading before the RTC in the form
of a petition in the samePetition Case No. U-920. The petition was for the reconsideration of
the decision of the RTC that ordered theregistration of the subject deed of donation. It was
prayed in the petition that an order be issued declaring null andvoid the registration of the
private deed of donation and that TCT No. 44481 be cancelled. However, the petition

wasdismissed on the ground that the decision in Petition Case No. U-920 had already
become final as it was not appealed.
.Issue:
Can respondents be bound by the decision in Petition CaseNo. U-920 even if they were not
made parties in the saidcase?
Held:
Petitioners cannot use the finality of the RTC decision in Petition Case No. U-920 as a shield
against the verification of thevalidity of the deed of donation. According to petitioners, the
said final decision is one for quieting of title. In other words, it is acase for declaratory relief
under Rule 64 (now Rule 63) of the Rules of Court. Suits to quiet title are not technically suits
in rem,nor are they, strictly speaking, in personam, but being against the person in respect
of the res, these proceedings arecharacterized as quasi in rem. The judgment in such
proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. Thus, respondents arenot bound by the
decision in Petition Case No. U-920 as they were not made parties in the said case.The rules
on quieting of title expressly provide that any declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not
prejudice persons who are not parties to the action.That respondents filed a subsequent
pleading in the same Petition Case No. U-920 after the decision there had become final
didnot change the fact that said decision became final without their being impleaded in the
case. Said subsequent pleading wasdismissed onthe ground of finality of the decision. \
_________________________________
Nepomuceno
139 SCRA 206

v.

CA

FACTS:
Martin Jugo left a duly executed and notarized Last Will and Testament before he died. Petitioner was
named as sole executor. It is clearly stated in the Will that he was legally married to a certain Rufina
Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, but he had been estranged from his lawful wife. In fact,
the testator Martin Jugo and the petitioner were married despite the subsisting first marriage. The
testator devised the free portion of his estate to petitioner. On August 21, 1974, the petitioner filed a
petition for probate. On May 13, 1975, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition alleging undue
and improper influence on the part of the petitioner; that at the time of the execution of the Will, the
testator was already very sick and that petitioner having admitted her living in concubinage with the
testator.
The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that as the testator admitted in his Will to
cohabiting with the petitioner. Petitioner appealed to CA. On June 2, 1982, the respondent court set aside
the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal denying the probate of the will. The respondent court
declared the Will to be valid except that the devise in favor of the petitioner is null and void.
ISSUE:
W/N the CA acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will and Testament of the
deceased Martin Jugo validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary
provision.

HELD:
No. The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when after declaring the Will to be validly drawn, it
went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the Will and declared the devise in favor of the petitioner
null and void. The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the courts area of inquiry is limited to an
examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will. The rule, however, is not inflexible and
absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation
constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Will.
The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.
Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before
it is probated, the court should meet the issue (Nuguid v. Nuguid)
The Will is void under Article 739. The following donations shall be void: (1) Those made between persons
who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation; and Article 1028. The prohibitions
mentioned in Article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions.
There is no question from the records about the fact of a prior existing marriage when Martin Jugo
executed his Will. The very wordings of the Will invalidate the legacy because the testator admitted he was
disposing the properties to a person with whom he had been living in concubinage.
__________________________
Rodelas v. Aranza
G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982
Relova, J. (Ponente)
Facts:
1. The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla in 1977. The
petition was opposed by the appellees on the ground that the deceased did not leave any will,
holographic or otherwise.
2. The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the original will was lost, a
photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the original.
Issue: Whether or not a holographic will can be proved by means of a photocopy
RULING: Yes. A photocopy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court with the standard
writings of the testator.
_________________
Francisco Cuizon et al. vs. Hon. Jose R. Ramolete
May 29, 1984 | Gutierrez, Jr.
Facts:
As early as 1961, Marciano Cuizon applied for the registration of several parcels of land in Mandaue City
docketed as L.R. Case No. N-179. In 1970, he distributed his property between his two daughters, Rufina
and Irene, to whom the salt beds subject of the controversy was given. In 1971, Irene executed a Deed of
Sale with Reservation of Usufruct involving the said salt beds in favor of petitioners Franciso et al.

Although the decision in L.R. Case No. N-179 was rendered way back in 1972, the decree of registration
and the corresponding O.C.T. was issued only in 1976 in the name of Marciano Cuizon. In that same year,
T.C.T No. 10477 covering the property in question was issued to Irene. The latter died in 1978.
During the extrajudicial settlement of the estate, Rufina, the mother of Francisco et al., adjudicated to
herself all the property of Irene including the salt beds in question. She then executed a deed of
Confirmation of Sale wherein she confirmed and ratified the 1971 deed of sale and renounced and waived
whatever rights and interests and participation she may have in the property in question in favor of the
petitioners. The deed was annotated in T.C.T. No. 10477. Subsequently, T.C.T. No. 12665 was issued in
favor of the petitioners.
In 1978, Domingo Antigua, who allegedly was chosen by the heirs of Irene to act as administrator, was
appointed administrator by the CFI of Cebu. Antigua included the salt bed in the inventory of Irenes
estate and asked the Cebu CFI to order petitioners to deliver the salt to him. The Cebu CFI granted the
same.
Issue: Whether a court handling the intestate proceedings has jurisdiction over parcels of land already
covered by a TCT issued in favor owners who are not parties to the intestate proceedings if the said
parcels of have been?
Held: No. It is a well-settled rule that a probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or
intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are
equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All said court could do is to determine whether they should or
should not be included in the inventory of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is
dispute, then the administrator and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final
determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so.
In the instant case, the property involved is not only claimed by outside parties but it was sold seven years
before the death of the decedent and is duly titled in the name of the vendees who are not party to the
proceedings.
In Bolisay vs. Alcid, the Court held that if a property covered by Torrens Title is involved, the presumptive
conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight, and in the absence of strong compelling
evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof should be considered as the owner of the property in
controversy until his title is nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action.
Having been apprised of the fact that the property in question was covered by a TCT issued in the name
of third parties, the respondent court should have denied the motion of the respondent administrator and
excluded the property in question from the inventory of the property of the estate.
Doctrine: Probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate
and equally claimed to belong to outside parties.
______________________

Fluemer vs. Hix(Allowance of will)

Statement of Facts:
The special administrator, A. W.Fleumer, of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix filedpetition
for the probate of the purported last will andtestament of Edward Randolf Hix,
deceased.JudgeTuason of the Court of First Instance denied thepetitionA. W. Fleumer appeals
the said decision. It isalleged that since the will was executed in West Virginia by a resident
therein, West Virginia law should govern.
Statement of Issue:
Whether or not the will may beprobated in the Philippines.
Ruling of the Court:
The courts of the Philippines arenot authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of
thevarious States of the American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the
requirements of law werenot met. There was no showing that the book from
which an extract was taken was printed or publishedunder the authority of the state of West
Virginia asprovided in the Code of Civil Procedure; nor was theextract from the law attested
by the certificate of theofficer having charge of the original.

In addition, the
dueexecution of the will was not established
. The onlyevidence on this point is to be found in the testimony ofthe petitioner. Aside from
this, there was nothing toindicate that the will was acknowledged by the testatorin the
presence of two competent witnesses, of that thesewitnesses subscribed the will in the
presence of thetestator and of each other as the law of West Virginiaseems to require. It is to
be noted that the
application forthe probate of the will in the Philippines was filed on February20, 1929
,
while the proceedings in West Virginia appear tohave been initiated on June 8, 1929
. These facts are
stronglyindicative of an intention to make the Philippines theprincipal administration and
West Virginia theancillary administration
. However this may be, noattempt has been made to comply with Civil Procedure,for no
hearing on the question of the allowance of a willsaid to have been proved and allowed in
West Virginiahas been requested. There is no showing that thedeceased left
any property at any place other than thePhilippine Islands
and no contention that he left any inWest Virginia.