GR 128314; (May, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128314 . May 29, 2002.
RODOLFO V. JAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PERICO V. JAO, respondents.
FACTS
Rodolfo and Perico Jao are the heirs of spouses Ignacio Jao Tayag and Andrea V. Jao, who died intestate. Perico filed a petition for letters of administration over their estate with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. He alleged that Rodolfo was dissipating estate assets. Rodolfo moved to dismiss the petition on grounds of improper venue, arguing that their deceased parents were permanent residents of Angeles City, Pampanga. He submitted documentary evidence like tax returns and voter affidavits to prove this. Rodolfo contended that their stay at his Quezon City house was merely transitory for medical treatment.
Perico opposed, asserting that Quezon City was the decedents’ last residence, as conclusively stated in their death certificates. Rodolfo himself had supplied the Quezon City address on their mother’s death certificate. Rodolfo filed a rejoinder, claiming he provided that information in good faith and by mistake, and that the death certificates were not conclusive evidence of residence against the other documents. The trial court denied Rodolfo’s motion to dismiss, giving weight to the death certificates. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is the proper venue for the settlement of the decedents’ estate.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the settlement of a decedent’s estate shall be filed in the court of the province where the decedent “resides” at the time of death. The Court clarified that the term “resides” in this context means the actual residence or place of abode, not the legal domicile or permanent home. Citing Garcia-Fule v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that “residence” in venue provisions is synonymous with “actual residence.” The decedents’ physical presence in Quezon City at the time of their deaths, as evidenced by the death certificates Rodolfo himself helped prepare, established it as their actual residence for venue purposes. The various documents indicating domiciliary intent in Angeles City were not controlling for determining venue under Rule 73. The Court also rejected the argument that venue for special proceedings differs from that in ordinary actions, ruling that the meaning of “residence” is the same. Thus, the Quezon City court correctly took cognizance of the case.