VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE vs. CA, PRECIOSA B. GARCIA and AGUSTINA B.

GARCIA, 74 SCRA 189 (1976)

(SpecPro 2016)

FACTS: Virginia G. Fule (illegitimate sister) filed with the CFI of Laguna a petition for letters of
administration alleging “that on April 26, 1973, Amado G. Garcia, a property owner of Calamba, Laguna,
died intestate in the City of Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna, and
in other places, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.” At the same time, she moved ex parte
for her appointment as special administratix over the estate. Judge Malvar granted the motion.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa B. Garcia, the surviving spouse of the deceased,
contending that

1) The decedent “resided” in QC for 3 months before his death as shown by his death certificate and
therefore have an improper venue.

2) The CFI of Calamba lacks jurisdiction over the petition.

CFI denied the motion.

CA reversed and affirmed making Preciosa the administratix.

Thus, Fule elevated the matter to the SC on appeal by certiorari.

ISSUES:

a.) Are venue and jurisdiction the same? How can it be determined in the present case?

b.) What does the word “resides” in Revised Rules of Court Rule 73 Section 1 Mean?

c.) Who is entitled as special administratix of the estate?

Held:

1. No, jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case base on the merits or
the substance of the facts. It is a substantive aspect of the trial proceeding. It is granted by law
or by the constitution and cannot be waived or stipulated.

On the other hand, Rule 4 of Rules of Court define venue as the proper court which has jurisdiction over
the area wherein real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. Venue is the location of the
court with jurisdiction. It is more on convenience purposes. It’s more on procedural aspect of the case.
In some cases it may be waived or stipulated by the parties.
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: “If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of
administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he
resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance
of any province in which he had estate.

1. “Resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or
physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence
in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely residence, that
is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily
presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place
and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. No particular length of time of residence is
required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary.

1. In the present case, SC ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased should be the
venue of the court. Amado G. Garcia was in Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna base on
his death certificate. A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at
the time of his death.

Withal, the conclusion becomes imperative that the venue for Virginia C. Fule’s petition for letters of
administration was improperly laid in the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna. Therefore Preciosa
B. Garcia was granted as a special administratix.