Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Rule 73 Venue & Process

    Uploaded by

    tris
    The document discusses the rules on venue and jurisdiction in probate cases in the Philippines. The key points are: 1. Venue is proper in the court of the province/city where a Philippine inhabitant resided at the time of death or the RTC of any province where a foreign inhabitant had estate. 2. Probate courts have limited jurisdiction to determine administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate, but generally cannot determine issues of ownership. 3. The first court to take cognizance of the estate settlement has exclusive jurisdiction, which generally cannot be divested by subsequent acts like extrajudicial partition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rule 73 Venue & Process

    Uploaded by

    tris
    26 views3 pages
    The document discusses the rules on venue and jurisdiction in probate cases in the Philippines. The key points are: 1. Venue is proper in the court of the province/city where a Philippine inhabitant resided at the time of death or the RTC of any province where a foreign inhabitant had estate. 2. Probate courts have limited jurisdiction to determine administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate, but generally cannot determine issues of ownership. 3. The first court to take cognizance of the estate settlement has exclusive jurisdiction, which generally cannot be divested by subsequent acts like extrajudicial partition.

    Original Description:

    Special Proceedings Notes

    Original Title

    RULE 73 VENUE & PROCESS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the rules on venue and jurisdiction in probate cases in the Philippines. The key points are: 1. Venue is proper in the court of the province/city where a Philippine inhabitant resided at the time of death or the RTC of any province where a foreign inhabitant had estate. 2. Probate courts have limited jurisdiction to determine administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate, but generally cannot determine issues of ownership. 3. The first court to take cognizance of the estate settlement has exclusive jurisdiction, which generally cannot be divested by subsequent acts like extrajudicial partition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    26 views3 pages

    Rule 73 Venue & Process

    Uploaded by

    tris
    The document discusses the rules on venue and jurisdiction in probate cases in the Philippines. The key points are: 1. Venue is proper in the court of the province/city where a Philippine inhabitant resided at the time of death or the RTC of any province where a foreign inhabitant had estate. 2. Probate courts have limited jurisdiction to determine administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate, but generally cannot determine issues of ownership. 3. The first court to take cognizance of the estate settlement has exclusive jurisdiction, which generally cannot be divested by subsequent acts like extrajudicial partition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    RULE 73

    VENUE & PROCESS

    INHABITANT OF PHILIPPINES (whether citizen or alien) – Court of province/city


    where he resides at the time of death.

    INHABITANT OF FOREIGN COUNTRY – RTC of any province wherein he had his


    estate.

    *Residence – means his personal, actual or physical habitation, his actual residence
    or place of abode. (Fule vs. CA, L-40502, Nov. 29, 1976)

    Where estate of deceased persons settled. (Sec.1)

    TWO (2) KINDS OF SETTLEMENT:

    A. EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT - (Rule 74, Section 1)

    B. JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT - Testate or Intestate Proceedings instituted in the country


    where decedent has his residence

    EXTENT OF JURISDICTION

    Probate courts are courts of LIMITED jurisdiction. It may only determine and rule upon
    issues relating to the settlement of the estate, namely:
    1. administration of the estate;
    2. liquidation of the estate; and
    3. distribution of the estate.

    GENERAL RULE: Probate court cannot determine issue of ownership.

    EXCEPTIONS:

    1. Provisionally, ownership may be determined for the purpose of including property


    in inventory, without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action; or
    2. When all the parties are heirs and they submit the issue of ownership to the
    probate court provided that the rights of third parties are not prejudiced. (Bernardo
    vs. CA, L-18148, Feb. 28, 1963)

    EXAMPLES OF OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH THE PROBATE COURT CAN


    DETERMINE
    1. Who are the heirs of the decedent;
    2. The recognition of a natural child;
    3. The validity of disinheritance effected by the testator;
    4. Status of a woman who claims to be the lawful wife of the decedent;
    5. The validity of a waiver of hereditary rights;
    6. The status of each heir;
    7. Whether property in inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of deceased
    spouse;
    8. All other matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the
    estate.
    PRINCIPLE OF EXCLUSIONARY RULE

    The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the decedent, shall
    exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.

    The probate court acquires jurisdiction from the moment the petition for the settlement is
    filed with said court. It cannot be divested of such jurisdiction by the subsequent acts of
    the parties as by entering into extrajudicial partition of the estate (Sandoval vs. Santiago,
    88 PHIL 784); or filing another petition for settlement in a proper court of concurrent
    venue (De Boria vs. Tan, 77 Phil 872).

    EXCEPTION:

    Estoppel by LACHES

    * Jurisdiction under Rule 73 Sec. 1 does NOT relate to jurisdiction per se but to venue.
    Hence, institution in the court where the decedent is neither an inhabitant or have his
    estate may be waived. (Uriarte vs. CFI, L-21938-39, May 29, 1970)

    * Improper venue must be seasonably raised. (Eusebio v. Eusebio, 100 PHIL 593)

    REMEDY IF THE VENUE IS IMPROPERLY LAID

    ORDINARY APPEAL not certiorari or mandamus UNLESS want of jurisdiction


    appears on the record of the case.

    RTC may issue writs and processes. (Sec.3, Rule 73)

    GENERAL RULE: Probate court cannot issue writs of execution.

    Reason: its orders usually refer to the adjudication of claims against the estate which the
    executor/administrator may satisfy without the need of executory process.

    EXCEPTIONS: EXCLUSIVE (expressio unius est exclusio alterius)

    1. To satisfy the contributive share of the devisees, legatees and heirs when the latter
    had entered prior possession over the estate. (Sec. 6, Rule 88)
    2. To enforce payment of the expenses of partition. (Sec. 3, Rule 90)

    Where the estate settled upon dissolution of marriage (Sec.2)

    Upon the death of either the husband or the wife, the partnership affairs must be
    liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased husband or wife. If both
    have died, liquidation may be made in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.

    BAR QUESTIONS

    2005

    State the rule on venue in judicial settlement of estate of deceased persons.


    1997
    Give the proper venue for the following special proceedings: a)

    a) A petition to declare as escheated a parcel of land owned by a resident of the


    Philippines who died intestate and without heirs or persons entitled to the
    property. b)

    b) A petition for the appointment of an administrator over the land and building left
    by an American citizen residing in California, who had been declared an
    incompetent by an American court. c)

    c) A petition for the adoption of a minor residing in Pampanga.

    2009

    Frank and Gina were married on June 12, 1987 in Manila. Barely a year after the
    wedding, Frank exhibited a violent temperament, forcing Gina, for reasons of personal
    safety, to live with her parents. A year thereafter, Gina found employment as a domestic
    helper in Singapore, where she worked for ten consecutive years. All the time she was
    abroad, Gina had absolutely no communications with Frank, nor did she hear any news
    about him. While in Singapore, Gina met and fell in love with Willie.

    On July 4, 2007, Gina filed a petition with the RTC of Manila to declare Frank
    presumptively dead, so that she could marry Willie. The RTC granted Gina's petition.
    The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, stating
    that it was appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact and law.

    Is a petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death a special proceeding? Why or why


    not? As the RTC judge who granted Gina's petition, will you give due course to the
    OSG's Notice of Appeal? Explain.

    You might also like