11.

# 11 - Consolidated Bank vs IAC

Facts:
1. Don Vicente Madrigal, a resident of Quezon City, died. To settle his estate, Special Proceedings No. Q-916960 was
filed in RTC Quezon City.
2. Judge Agana who was originally assigned in RTC Pasay was temporarily detailed in RTC QC. During said period,
he was assigned to handle SP No. Q-916960. When he was made to return to RTC Pasay, he also brought with him
the case records.
3. In the course of the subject estate proceedings, a Motion for Payment of Lien was filed by Mrs.Vasquez attaching
therewith an agreement executed by and among Don Madrigal's heirs. In the agreement, the heirs provided that a
reimbursement amounting to P5M be paid to Mrs. Vasquez for all the expenses in the prosecution/defense cases
filed by one against the other. Said reimbursement shall be taken from the Estate of Don Vicente or from the
proceeds of the settlement of the claim of Madrigal and Co.
4. Petitioner did not attend the hearing on the Motion for Payment of Lien. Hence, the probate court granted it and
directed Petitioner to pay Mrs. Vasquez P5,833,333 from the estate of Don Madrigal.
5. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the said order grounded on the following reasons:
A.
Order
was
beyond
the
limited
and
special
B.
No
due
process
C. Order is a violation of tax laws on payment of estate taxes

jurisdiction
was

of

the

court
given

6. Probate court stood by its decisions regarding the first and second grounds raised by Petitioner. According to the
probate court, the order was made in view of the agreement executed by all of the heirs. It also cited that the
Administrator was properly apprised of the Motion for Payment of Lien as well as the date of its subsequent hearing
but they still failed to send a representative. As to the third ground, the court found merit. It believes that a part of the
approved amount should be withheld to answer for the estate taxes which it failed to provide in its earlier order. The
court said that P833k must be set aside for any obligations and liabilities.
7. When an administrative order was issued by the SC limiting RTC Pasay's jurisdiction, the probate court required
the parties to show cause why the case should not be transferred to RTC QC.
8. Two of the heirs manifested their desire to have the case retained by the current probate court (RTC Pasay). The
Petitioner, on the other hand, did not give its comformity, in effect, objecting to the retention by the Pasay City probate
court.
9. Petitioner later on filed an omnibus motion praying for the return of the case to the court of origin or RTC QC. But
the motion was denied.
10. When the matter was brought to the CA, The appellate court upheld due process in the instant case and waiver of
venue.
11. Petitioner argues that there was improper venue, insisting as a result, that the probate proceedings including that
taken by the Court of Appeals is null. Their failure to object to the proceedings conducted at Pasay City Regional Trial
Court, should not be taken as a waiver on their part as to venue because they believed that the proceedings were
only temporary and that the case would subsequently be returned to Quezon City for further proceedings.

Issue: whether or not there was waiver of venue by inaction on the part of petitioner.
Ruling:
1. While the Court agrees with the petitioner that venue in this case should have been laid in Quezon City, petitioner's
inaction has worked against it. We agree with the Court of Appeals that indeed, petitioner has waived its right to
contest the question of venue.
2. The action in the present case pertains to the probate of the intestate estate of the late Don Vicente Madrigal, in
which case a regional trial court properly has jurisdiction over the case, both under the Judiciary Act of 1948, Sec. 44
(e) and under BP 129, Sec. 19(4).
Objection to improper venue should be made in a motion to dismiss. Until this is done, venue cannot truly be said to
have been improperly laid.
3. It was only when the probate court ordered the petitioner to pay Mrs Vasquez did the latter raise the issue on
improper venue.
4. The court, of course, notes that Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss but it was belatedly done
considering that petitioner has already submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court. In fact, petitioner itself had filed
no less than four (4) motions and pleadings with the court a quo, thereby recognizing its jurisdiction.
5. In closing, SC quoted CA's ratiocination: "We are not prepared to rule that all the proceedings in the past are null
and void because of venue and send back the proceedings to the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, try the case
anew from the very beginning to where this incident came about which proceedings might take more than five (5)
years again. We are not prone to do this, conscious of the fact that one of the primordial objections of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 is the speedy administration of justice but within the framework of the rule of law. We are not
inclined to give Our affirmance to the petitioner's desire for the said transfer because the procedure will only militate
against the interest of all the parties considering that everybody is desirous to terminate the proceedings as early as
possible and the continuance of the proceedings before the respondent court has not caused any damage against
the parties and there is no damage as well against public interest."