Jao vs CA
RODOLFO V. JAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and PERICO V. JAO, respondents.
May 29, 2002
Ynares-Santiago, J.
NATURE: petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
SUMMARY: Rodolfo filed a motion to dismiss his brother Perico's petition for the
issuance of letters of administration of their parents estate, on the ground of
improper venue. However, SC did not find merit in his claim that it is the domicile of
his deceased parents which should actually be considered in determining the proper
venue and not the residence at the time of their death. SC held that Rule 73 Sec 1
contemplated actual and not legal residence.
DOCTRINE: Venue for civil actions and that for special proceedings have one and the
same meaning. "Residence" in the context of venue provisions means nothing more
than a person's actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein with
continuity and consistency.
FACTS:
Rodolfo and Perico Jao were the only sons of the spouses Tayag, who died
intestate in 1988 and 1989, leaving behind real estate, cash, shares of stock,
personal properties
Perico filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration before the RTC
of QC. He also moved that he be appointed special administrator pending
appointment of a regular administrator, alleging that
o
Rodolfo was gradually dissipating the assets of the estate
o
The latter was receiving rentals from real properties without rendering
any accounting, forcibly opening vaults belonging to their parents and
disposing of the valuables therein
Rodolfo moved to dismiss petition on the ground of improper venue, arguing:
o
Their parents did not reside in QC either during their lifetime or at the
time of their deaths
o
Actual residence of their parents was in Angeles, Pampanga, and their
parents stayed in his residence in Scout Gandia, QC solely for the purpose
of obtaining medical treatment -- in other words their stay was merely
transitory
Perico countered that their deceased parents actually resided in Rodolfo's QC
house at the time of their deaths
o
Such was conclusively declared in their death certificates, and it was
Rodolfo himself who supplied the entry and signed on their
mother's death certificate
TC denied Rodolfo's MTD on the basis of the death certificate. CA upheld TC
ruling.
ISSUE (HELD)
W/N the settlement proceedings ought to be held in the decedents' permanent
residence, or where they actually stayed before their demise (ACTUAL RESIDENCE)
RATIO
ROC 73 Sec. 1: If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time
of his death letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the
CFI in the province w/c he resides at the time of his death
Rodolfo invoked Eusebio vs Eusebio:
o
In determining residence at the time of death, the following factors
must be considered, namely, the decedent had:
a) capacity to choose and freedom of choice;
b) physical presence at the place chosen; and
c) intention to stay therein permanently
His parents, according to him, never adopted QC as their permanent
residence
SC held this argument to be w/o merit; in Eusebio, the decedent died even
before he could move to the QC house he had acquired (also for health
reasons) and so he retained his domicile in Pampanga
In this case, there is substantial proof that the decedents have
transferred to Rodolfo's QC residence, especially as he failed to refute the
fact that their elderly parents stayed in his house for some 3-4 years before
they died
o
That Rodolfo himself filled out their mother's death certificate
unqualifiedly shows that at the that time, Rodolfo recognized his
deceased mother's residence to be QC
Having been accomplished before the brothers quarrelled over their
inheritance, the death certs may be relied upon to reflect the true situation at
the time of their parents' death
Other documents presented by Rodolfo (ITR, voters affidavits, SAL, real estate
tax payments, passports showing Pampanga as their residence) pertain not to
the residence at the time of death, as required, but to permanent residence or
domicile
o
SC cited Garcia-Fule vs CA (see doctrine in the previous case)
Rodolfo also argues that while venue in ordinary civil actions understandably
refers to actual physical residence for the purpose of serving summons, it is
the permanent residence of the decedent which is significant in Rule 73 Sec. 1
because it is the place where the records of the properties are kept and where
most of the decedent's properties are located
o
SC: It does not necessarily follow that the records of a person's
properties are kept in the place where he permanently resides. Neither
can it be presumed that a person's properties can be found mostly in the
place where he establishes his domicile.
o
In previous cases SC already ruled that venue for ordinary civil
actions and that for special proceedings have one and the same
meaning
o
"residence," in the context of venue provisions, means nothing
more than a person's actual residence or place of abode, provided
he resides therein with continuity and consistency
DISPOSITIVE: petition denied; CA ruling affirmed.
