G.R. No. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970
VICENTE URIARTE, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL (12th Judicial District) THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH IV, JUAN URIARTE ZAMACONA and HIGINIO URIARTE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Uriarte filed a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Don Juan Uriarte y Goite (Special Proceeding No. 6344) with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental on November 6, 1961. He alleged he was the decedent’s sole heir as a natural son and had a pending civil case (No. 6142) for compulsory acknowledgment. The Negros court appointed the Philippine National Bank as special administrator, but it never qualified. On December 19, 1961, respondent Higinio Uriarte opposed the petition, stating the decedent left a will executed in Spain. On August 28, 1962, respondent Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed a petition for probate of the alleged will (Special Proceeding No. 51396) with the Court of First Instance of Manila and moved to dismiss the Negros proceeding. The Negros court dismissed Special Proceeding No. 6344 on April 19, 1963. Vicente Uriarte’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 27, 1963. He then filed a notice of appeal, but the Negros court disapproved his record on appeal on December 7, 1963. Meanwhile, Vicente Uriarte filed an omnibus motion in the Manila proceeding to intervene and dismiss it, which was denied on July 1, 1963. Vicente Uriarte filed an original petition for certiorari (G.R. L-21938) seeking to annul the orders of both courts and a supplemental petition for mandamus (G.R. L-21939) to compel the Negros court to approve his record on appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental erred in dismissing Special Proceeding No. 6344.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila erred in not dismissing Special Proceeding No. 51396 despite the prior filing of Special Proceeding No. 6344 in Negros.
3. Whether the supplemental petition for mandamus to compel approval of the record on appeal is meritorious.

RULING

1. The Negros court did not err in dismissing the intestate proceeding. The decedent, Juan Uriarte y Goite, was a non-resident alien. Under Rule 75, Section 1 (now Rule 73, Section 1), Courts of First Instance in provinces where a non-resident alien left property have concurrent jurisdiction over the settlement of his estate. The principle that the court first taking cognizance acquires exclusive jurisdiction applies only when the proceedings are of the same character (i.e., both testate or both intestate). Here, the Negros proceeding was intestate, while the Manila proceeding was testate. Since a decedent is presumed to have died testate, the presentation of a will for probate is a superior consideration to an intestate proceeding. The Negros court correctly dismissed the intestate proceeding upon being informed of the will and the testate proceeding in Manila.
2. The Manila court did not err in not dismissing the testate proceeding. The testate proceeding takes precedence over the intestate proceeding. The Manila court properly acquired jurisdiction over the probate of the will. Furthermore, Vicente Uriarte, at the time he filed the intestate proceeding, had not been judicially declared an acknowledged natural son of the decedent; his action for compulsory acknowledgment was still pending. Thus, his legal personality to initiate the intestate proceeding was doubtful.
3. The supplemental petition for mandamus has become moot and academic. Granting it would only compel the Negros court to give due course to an appeal from the orders dismissing the intestate proceeding. Since those dismissal orders were valid, the intended appeal would serve no useful purpose. The proper recourse for Vicente Uriarte is to intervene in the testate proceeding in Manila to submit the question of his acknowledgment, as the probate court has jurisdiction to declare heirs.
The petitions for certiorari and mandamus are dismissed. The preliminary injunction is set aside. Costs against petitioner.