1. San Luis vs.

San Luis
Facts: The instant case involves the settlement of estate of Felicisimo San Luis. Felicismo,
who was a former governor of the province of Laguna, contracted three marriage.
His first marriage was with Virginia, the mother of petitioner Rodolfo San Luis and 5
other children. Virgina predeceased Felicismo.
Five years later he married Merry Lee with whom he had a son. However, Mary Lee
file a divorce before the fsmily court of Hawaii.
Subsequently, Felicismo arried respondent Felicidad San Luis. He had no children
with respondent but lived with her for 18 years from their marriage up to his death.
After Felicisimos death, respondent filed a petition for letters of administration
before the RTC of Makati. Respondent alleged that he was the widow of Felicisimo
and they were resident of Alabang.
Petitioner Rodolfo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue.
Petitioner claimed that it should have been filed in the Province of Laguna because
this was the place of residence prior to his death, petitioner argued that residence
for purposes of fixing the venue of settlement of he estate of Fecisimo is
synonymous with domicile. He further claimed that respondent has no legal
personality to file the petition because she was only a mistress of Felicisimo, that
Felicisimo was still legally married to Mary Lee.
Issue:
a. Whether or not the case was properly laid.
b. Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for
letter of administration.
Ruling:
a) Yes. The case was properly laid. Under Section 1, 39 Rule 73 of the Rules of Court,
the petition for letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed
in the Regional Trial Court of the province "in which he resides at the time of his
death." The term resides connoted actual resince as distinguished from legal
residence or domicile. In the instant case, while petitioners established that
Felicisimo was domiciled in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent proved that Felicisimo
also maintained a residence in Alabang, Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his
death.
b) Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry respondent,
nevertheless, respondent still has the legal personality to file the subject petition
for letters of administration, as she may be considered the co-owner of Felicisimo
as regards the properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during their
cohabitation. Section 2, Rule 79 provides that A petition for letters of
administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, as far as
known to the petitioner An "interested person" has been defined as one who
would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against
the estate, such as a creditor. In the instant case, respondent would qualify as an
interested person who has a direct interest in the estate of Felicisimo by virtue of
their cohabitation, the existence of which was not denied by petitioners. If she
proves the validity of the divorce and Felicisimo's capacity to remarry, but fails to
prove that her marriage with him was validly performed under the laws of the
U.S.A., then she may be considered as a co-owner under Article 144 76 of the Civil
Code.

2. Garcia-Quiazon vs. Belen

Facts: Elise Quiazon, represented by her mother, Lourdes, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration
before the RTC of Las Pias City. In her Petition, Elise claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo
having been conceived and born at the time when her parents were both capacitated to marry
each other. Amelia, together with her children, Jenneth and Jennifer, opposed the issuance of the
letters of administration contending that the venue of the petition was improperly laid. The
petitioners asserted that as shown by his Death Certificate, Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarlac
and not of Las Pias City, at the time of his death and that the petition for settlement of
decedent's estate should have been filed in Capas, Tarlac and not in Las Pias City. In addition to
their claim of improper venue, the petitioners averred that there are no factual and legal bases for
Elise to be appointed administratix of Eliseo's estate.

Issue:
a. Whether or not the case was properly laid.
b. Whether or not Elise has the right to be appointed administratix of the Estate of
Eliseo.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The case was properly laid. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court,the
petition for letters of administration of the estate of a decedent should be filed in
the RTC of the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death. It is
evident from the records that during his lifetime, Eliseo was a resident of Las Pias City. For this
reason, the venue for the settlement of his estate may be laid in the said city. While the recitals in
death certificates can be considered proofs of a decedent's residence at the time of his death, the
contents thereof, however, is not binding on the courts
2. Yes. Elise has the right to be appointed administratxi of the Estate of Eliseo. Section 2 of Rule 79
provides that a petition for Letters of Administration must be filed by an interested person. An
"interested party," in estate proceedings, is one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an
heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate proceedings, the
phrase "next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with the decedent is such that they are
entitled to share in the estate as distributees. In the instant case, Elise, as a compulsory heir who
stands to be benefited by the distribution of Eliseo's estate, is deemed to be an interested party.

3. Agtarap vs. Agtarap

FACTS:
Decedent Joaquin left (2) parcels of land with improvements. He contracted (2)
marriages.
o With Lucia (W1), who died 1924; three children, Jesus (+), Milagros (+), Jose
(+)
o Then with Caridad (W2), with three children, Eduardo, Sebastian, Mercedes
Son Eduardo (W2) filed petition for settlement of Joaquins intestate estate. RTC
issued resolution appointing Eduardo as administrator.
The RTC issued an Order of Partition on Oct 23, 2000 which ruled that bulk of
estate property were acquired during the existence of 2nd marriage, TCTs showing

Joaquin married to Caridad.

Eduardo, Sebastian, and oppositors Joseph & Teresa (Jose children) filed their
respective motions for reconsiderations. The RTC
o Denied Eduardo & Sebastian MRs
o Granted MR of Joseph & Teresa
o Declared real properties belonged to conjugal partnership of Joaquin &
Lucia and directed Oct Partition to reflect correct sharing of heirs
Eduardo & Sebastian both appealed to CA before RTC could issue new order of
partition. The CA dismissed the appeals and affirmed the RTC resolution. The CA
also directed the partition of Joaquins properties. Aggrieved, Sebastian and
Eduardo filed separate MRs which were denied. They filed separate petitions for
review which were eventually consolidated.
Sebastian contended that
o Joseph & Teresa failed to establish that they are legitimate heirs of Jose, and
thus of their grandfather Joaquin
o Certificates of title of subject property indicate Joaquin married to Caridad
which is conclusive proof of ownership, and thus not subject to collateral
attack
Eduardo alleged
o CA erroneously settled Joaquins estate together with the estates of Lucia,
Jesus, Jose, Mercedes, Gloria and Milagros in one proceeding
o Estate of Milagros cannot be distributed, since a proceeding was already
conducted in another court for the probate of Milagros will, thus violating the
rule on precedence of testate over intestate proceedings.
o RTC, acting as an intestate court with limited jurisdiction has no jurisdiction
to determine questions of ownership which belongs to another court with
general jursdiction
ISSUE:
RTC as intestate court has jurisdiction to resolve ownership of real properties?
CA settlement of Joaquin estate together with the estates of the other heirs
Legitimacy of Joseph & Teresa
HELD:
Eduardos petition granted. Sebastians petition denied. CA affirmed with
modification that the
o share awarded in favor of Milagros shall not be distributed until the final
determination of the probate of the will .
o Sebastian to be represented by wife and children, given demise in 2010
Case remanded to RTC for further settlement of Joaquins estate.
RTC has jurisdiction to resolve ownership of the real properties.
o Gen Rule: Jurisdiction of trial court, either as probate or intestate court,
relates only to matters having to do with probate of will and or settlement of
estate of deceased persons and does not extend to determination of
questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings.
o Exceptions, as justified by expediency and convenience:
Probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or testate
proceeding the question of inclusion or exclusion, from inventory of a
piece of property w/o prejudice to final determination in a separate
action

If interested parties are all heirs or question is one of

collation/advancement or parties consent to the assumption of of
jurisdiction by the court and the rights of 3P are not impaired
Estate is settled and distributed among heirs only after payment of debts of the
estate, funeral charges admin expenses, allowance to th widow, and inheritance
tax. Records show these were not complied with in 1965.
Sebastian did not present evidence to support averments to exclude Joseph and
Teresa as heirs.
CA disposition related only to the estate of Joaquin.
o Sec 1 Rule 90: RTC granted jurisdiction to determine lawful heirs of Joaquin
as well as respective shares in the payment of obligations
o The inclusion of Lucia, Jesus, Jose, Mercedes and Gloria was merely a
necessary consequence of the settlement of Joaquins estate, they being his
legal heirs.

4. Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay

Facts: