VICENTE URIARTE vs. CFI, et. al.

G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970

Facts:
Petitioner Vicente Uriarte filed a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Don Juan Uriarte y
Goite, a non-resident alien, in CFI Negros Oriental, alleging that he is an acknowledged natural son of
the decedent and his sole heir. Petitioner had previously initiated an action before the same court for
compulsory acknowledgment as natural son but there was no final judgment yet. Private respondents,
nephews of the decedent, filed an opposition alleging that the decedent had left a will in Spain. Later,
the same respondents filed a petition for probate in CFI Manila using the alleged last will of the
decedent, and then filed a motion to dismiss the special proceedings in CFI Negros Oriental. The CFI
Manila allowed the petition for probate, and the CFI Negros dismissed the intestate proceeding.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration in CFI Negros which was denied. He also filed an
omnibus motion in CFI Manila asking for the dismissal of the probate proceeding on the ground that it
was the CFI Negros that took first cognizance of the case. Said motion was denied by CFI Manila.
Hence this petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion of the two courts CFI
Manila and Negros Oriental.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the dismissal of the special proceedings in CFI Negros was proper; and
2. Whether or not CFI Manila has jurisdiction to probate the alleged will.
Held:
On the first issue, it was proper that the intestate proceeding in Negros CFI be discontinued because of
the fact that the decedent had left a will. It is well-settled that testacy is favored over intestacy, and that
any intestate proceeding may be terminated at any time when it is discovered that the deceased had left
a will. However, the proper thing the private respondents should have done was to file the petition for
probate in CFI Negros which was already hearing the intestate proceeding. The issue now is improper
venue, not jurisdiction. Unfortunately for petitioner, he is now guilty of laches for failing to timely
object to the filing of the petition for probate in CFI Manila. It is settled that questions of venue may be
waived when not timely objected to. Hence, the CFI Manila may continue with the probate case,
without prejudice to petitioner's successful action for his compulsory recognition as heir.
Petition for certiorari was denied.