G.R. No. L-28054 June 15, 1972
INTESTATE ESTATE OF ROSINA MARGUERITE WOLFSON, deceased, RICARDO VITO CRUZ, petitioner-appellee. TESTATE ESTATE of ROSINA MARGUERITE WOLFSON, deceased, MANUEL Y. MACIAS, petitioner-appellant, ARTURO M. DEL ROSARIO, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Rosina Marguerite Wolfson died in California, USA, with a will naming Wells Fargo Bank as executor. Unaware of the will, Atty. Manuel Y. Macias filed a petition for intestate administration (Special Proceedings No. 63866) on behalf of Ricardo Vito Cruz, who was appointed special administrator. Upon learning of the will, which had been probated in California, the bank’s attorney-in-fact, Atty. Arturo del Rosario, petitioned within the same proceedings to convert it into a testate estate for ancillary administration in the Philippines.
Subsequently, Atty. Macias, acting in his own behalf and without informing his client Cruz, filed a separate and independent petition (Special Proceedings No. 67302) before a different branch of the Manila CFI, seeking probate of the same will and his own appointment as special administrator. He was appointed. Del Rosario and Cruz opposed, arguing the estate was already subject to pending proceedings in another branch, making the second petition improper.

ISSUE

Whether the separate petition for probate (Special Proceedings No. 67302) filed by Atty. Macias before a different court branch should be dismissed in light of the prior pending proceedings over the same estate.

RULING

Yes, the separate petition was correctly dismissed. The legal logic is anchored on the principle against multiplicity of suits and the specific rule on venue in estate proceedings. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The intestate proceeding (No. 63866) was unquestionably filed first. The subsequent filing by Macias, seeking essentially the same relief of probate for the same estate, constituted forum-shopping and was an improper attempt to secure administration for himself after his initial strategy through his client was superseded by the discovery of the will. The Court found his actions, including his failure to inform the second court of the prior proceedings, to be indicative of an improper motive that burdened the court dockets and risked conflicting rulings. The prior proceeding was the proper and exclusive venue for all matters concerning the settlement of Wolfson’s estate.