Uriarte vs.

CFI L-21938-39 May 1970

Facts:
Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain and he left
reasonable properties in the Philippines. Vicente
Uriarte, who is claiming to be the son and sole heir of
the deceased, filed a petition for the intestate
settlement of the estate of the deceased in the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental. However, said
petition was opposed by the nephews of Juan stating
that there is a valid will left by the deceased in Spain, a
copy of which is being requested. Then, the nephews
filed a settlement of the estate in the 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 Manila stating that the court of Negros
Occidental has already acquired original jurisdiction
over the case. The opposition of Vicente was dismissed
together with the intestate settlement In the CFI of
Negros. Hence, Vicente filed a petition for certiorari
questioning the dismissal of the intestate settlement in
the CFI of Negros.
Issue:
Whether or not the intestate settlement should be
dismissed.
Held:
Yes. 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, testate
proceedings enjoy priority over intestate proceedings.
Therefore, in case intestate settlement was filed prior
to the finding of the will of the deceased, then the
intestate proceedings shall be dismissed to give
priority to the testate proceeding.
Cuenco vs. CA L-24742
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.
ISSUE:
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:
No. 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.

Bernardo vs. CA L-18148 February 1963

FACTS:
Eusebio Capili and Hermogena Reyes were husband
and wife. Eusebio died and his properties were
disposed in his will to his wife Hermogena and his 6
cousins which included Deogracias Bernardo, the
executor. The wife died and she was substituted by her
collateral relatives, upon executor Bernardo's petition.
Petitioner-executor filed his project of partition, but was
opposed by collateral relatives claiming that of the
properties disposed of in the will are part of the
spouses conjugal partnership. Probate court heard
evidence. Petitioner contended that it was donated by
the wife to the husband so it was not part of CPG and
that the oppositors cannot question the validity of the
donation in the probate proceedings. Oppositors
rebutted that since it was donated during marriage, it
was void; hence, the husband did not own it and
cannot dispose it by will. Probate court ordered the
donation voided and that executor submit another
project of partition. Petitioner filed Motion for New trial
(MNT) on the ground that probate court had no
jurisdiction, but was denied. Petitioner filed for appeal
to CA, but was also denied. Hence, this petition for
review by certiorari before the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a probate court can determine a
question of ownership over property during
distribution.
HELD:
YES. Probate court has to liquidate the conjugal
partnership to determine the testator's estate to be
distributed to the heirs who are parties to the
proceedings. As a general rule, question as to title to
property cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate
proceedings," except: a. where one of the parties prays
merely for the inclusion or exclusion from the inventory
of the property, in which case the probate court may
pass provisionally upon the question without prejudice
to its final determination in a separate action. b. when
the parties interested are all heirs of the deceased, it is
optional to them to submit to the probate court a
question as to title to property, and when so submitted,
said probate court may definitely pass judgment
thereon c. all parties give consent so that matters
affecting property under judicial administration may be
taken cognizance of by the court in the course of
intestate proceeding, provided interests of third
persons are not prejudiced