Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 120 views

    Garcia Fule Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    mario navalez
    The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna, which had appointed Virginia Garcia Fule as special administratrix of the estate of Amado G. Garcia. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Court of First Instance of Calamba did not have proper jurisdiction, as Amado Garcia had resided in Quezon City for the past three years prior to his death. Under the Rules of Court, probate proceedings must be initiated in the court of the province where the deceased last resided. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that venue was improperly laid in Calamba since the deceased's last place of residence was Quezon City.

    Copyright:

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

    Garcia Fule Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    mario navalez
    120 views1 page
    The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna, which had appointed Virginia Garcia Fule as special administratrix of the estate of Amado G. Garcia. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Court of First Instance of Calamba did not have proper jurisdiction, as Amado Garcia had resided in Quezon City for the past three years prior to his death. Under the Rules of Court, probate proceedings must be initiated in the court of the province where the deceased last resided. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that venue was improperly laid in Calamba since the deceased's last place of residence was Quezon City.

    Original Title

    Garcia-Fule-vs-CA-Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna, which had appointed Virginia Garcia Fule as special administratrix of the estate of Amado G. Garcia. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Court of First Instance of Calamba did not have proper jurisdiction, as Amado Garcia had resided in Quezon City for the past three years prior to his death. Under the Rules of Court, probate proceedings must be initiated in the court of the province where the deceased last resided. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that venue was improperly laid in Calamba since the deceased's last place of residence was Quezon City.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    120 views1 page

    Garcia Fule Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    mario navalez
    The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna, which had appointed Virginia Garcia Fule as special administratrix of the estate of Amado G. Garcia. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Court of First Instance of Calamba did not have proper jurisdiction, as Amado Garcia had resided in Quezon City for the past three years prior to his death. Under the Rules of Court, probate proceedings must be initiated in the court of the province where the deceased last resided. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that venue was improperly laid in Calamba since the deceased's last place of residence was Quezon City.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Garcia Fule vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.

    L-40502 November 29, 1976]


    TOPIC: Initiation of probate proceedings

    FACTS:
     Virginia Garcia Fule (petitioner) filed before CFI of Calamba, Laguna a Petition for letters of administration of
    the estate of Amado G. Garcia. She moved ex parte for her appointment as special administratrix of the
    estate. This was GRANTED.
     Preciosa Garcia filed for a motion for reconsideration contending that the order appointing Virginia G. Fule
    as special administratrix was issued without jurisdiction
    o There was no notice of the petition for letters of administration has been served upon all persons
    interested in the estate;
    o She contends that she should be preferred in the appointment of a special administratrix, being the
    surviving spouse of Amado; and,
    o Virginia is not an heir but a debtor of the estate of Amado G. Garcia.
     While the MR is pending, Preciosa filed a motion to remove Virginia as administrator.
     During the hearings for the case, Virginia presented that: Amado resided in Quezon City 3 years before his
    death, therefore CFI Calamba has no jurisdiction over the case.
     CFI DENIED the two petitions of Preciosa.
     CA REVERSED the decision. It vacated the decision made by the CFI. It held that CFI Calamba, Laguna does
    not have jurisdiction over the case.

    ISSUE: W/N the venue is improperly laid – YES, SC ruled in favor of Preciosa.

     JURISDICTION is the power and authority of the court over the subject matter. Jurisdiction of all probate
    cases is within the Court of First Instance which is different from the place of residence of the deceased.
    o It cannot be changed by procedure and be stipulated by the parties.
     VENUE is the place of the hearing. Since there are many Court of First Instance, the venue can be fixed.
    o The rules provides that the venue is the place of residence of deceased or the province.

    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.

     SC ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased should be the venue of the court. IN HERE, the
    decedent died in Quezon City as provided by the death certificate.

    NOTES:
     “Resides” should be seen as 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. 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.
     The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies in the probate court. That, however, is no authority for the
    judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment.
    Exercise of that discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice and legal principle. There is no reason why the same
    fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of a regular administrator should not be taken into account in
    the appointment of a special administrator. Nothing is wrong for the judge to consider the order of preference in the
    appointment of a regular administrator in appointing a special administrator. After all, the consideration that overrides
    all others in this respect is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the estate of the decedent. Under the law, the
    widow would have the right of succession over a portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, besides her share in
    the conjugal partnership. For such reason, she would have as such, if not more, interest in administering the entire
    estate correctly than any other next of kin. The good or bad administration of a property may affect rather the fruits
    than the naked ownership of a property.

    You might also like