G.R. No. L-21993; June 21, 1966
ANGELA RODRIGUEZ, MARIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN DE BORJA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch III, ANATOLIA PANGILINAN and ADELAIDA JACALAN, respondents.

FACTS

Rev. Fr. Celestino Rodriguez died on February 12, 1963, in Manila. On March 4, 1963, respondents Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan delivered his purported last will and testament to the Clerk of Court of Bulacan. On March 8, 1963, petitioners Maria and Angela Rodriguez filed a petition to examine the alleged will but withdrew it on March 11, 1963. On March 12, 1963, at 8:00 A.M., the petitioners filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Fr. Rodriguez in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging he was a resident of Parañaque, Rizal, and died without a will. Later, at 11:00 A.M. on the same day, the respondents filed a petition for the probate of the will in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The parties stipulated that Fr. Rodriguez was born in Parañaque, Rizal; served as Parish priest in Hagonoy, Bulacan from 1930 until his death; was buried in Parañaque; and left real properties in Rizal, Cavite, Quezon City, and Bulacan. The petitioners moved to dismiss the Bulacan probate proceedings, arguing the Rizal court acquired exclusive jurisdiction because its intestate proceeding was filed earlier on the same day. The Bulacan court denied the motion, holding that jurisdiction vested upon the delivery of the will on March 4, 1963, and that the petitioners filed the Rizal case in bad faith to prevent Bulacan from exercising jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Bulacan acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of Fr. Celestino Rodriguez, thereby rendering the intestate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissible.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and upheld the jurisdiction of the Bulacan court. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the settlement of estates is conferred upon all Courts of First Instance, and the place of residence of the decedent affects only venue, not jurisdiction. The delivery of the will to the Bulacan court on March 4, 1963, vested jurisdiction upon that court, as under Rule 76, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the court may act upon the mere deposit of a will. This act preceded the filing of the intestate proceedings in Rizal on March 12, 1963. Under Rule 73, Section 1, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts, regardless of venue considerations. Furthermore, the petitioners’ institution of intestate proceedings in Rizal, after learning of the will’s deposit in Bulacan, was done in bad faith. Finally, intestate succession is merely subsidiary to testate succession; thus, intestacy proceedings cannot proceed while the probate of a purported will is pending. The Bulacan court committed no abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the probate proceedings, and the proceedings in the Rizal court should be discontinued.