GR 48444; (June, 1943) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48444 , June 30, 1943
In the matter of the intestate estate of the late Kaw Singco (alias Co Chi Seng). SY OA, administratrix-appellee, vs. CO HO, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
This case involves the intestate estate of the late Kaw Singco (alias Co Chi Seng). The oppositor-appellant, Co Ho, sought reconsideration of a Supreme Court resolution that certified the case to the Court of Appeals. The resolution was based on the ruling that the question involved was not one of jurisdiction over the subject matter but of venue, which hinged on a factual issue: whether the deceased, at the time of his death, was residing in Camarines Sur or in the City of Manila. The Supreme Court, following its prior rulings in Reyes vs. Diaz and Bernabe vs. Vergara, held that such a question pertained to venue, not jurisdiction over the subject matter.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the question of the deceased’s place of residence in a probate case is a matter affecting the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter or merely a question of venue.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. It reaffirmed its interpretation that the term “jurisdiction” as used in Article VIII, Section 2, No. 3 of the Constitution and Section 138, No. 3 of the Revised Administrative Code refers to jurisdiction over the subject matter only, unless a broader sense is clearly intended. The Court clarified that the issue of jurisdiction referred to in these provisions involves the interpretation and application of laws distributing judicial power among courts, which is a question of law. This is distinct from clause 6 of the same provision, which covers cases involving only errors or questions of law, as clause 3 applies even when factual issues are present, provided the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter is properly raised.
The Court explicitly declined to follow prior decisions that treated the place of residence in probate cases as a question of jurisdiction over the subject matter, citing potentially “mischievous consequences.” It reasoned that annulling entire proceedings due to a venue error raised late on appeal would undermine the administration of justice. The Court distinguished between jurisdiction and venue, stating that Act No. 136 (the law of jurisdiction) confers upon Courts of First Instance jurisdiction over all probate cases, while Act No. 190 , Section 600 (the law of procedure) merely fixes the venue—the province where the deceased last resided. Therefore, the deceased’s residence is a matter of venue, not an element of jurisdiction. This distinction is reflected in the new Rules of Court, which properly term the location for settling an estate as “venue.”