G.R. No. L-8409 December 28, 1956
In the Matter of the Intestate of the deceased Andres Eusebio. EUGENIO EUSEBIO, petitioner-appellee, vs. AMANDA EUSEBIO, JUAN EUSEBIO, DELFIN EUSEBIO, VICENTE EUSEBIO, and CARLOS EUSEBIO, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

On November 16, 1953, Eugenio Eusebio filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for his appointment as administrator of the estate of his father, Andres Eusebio, who died on November 28, 1952. The petition alleged the decedent’s residence was in Quezon City. On December 4, 1953, Amanda, Virginia, Juan, Delfin, Vicente, and Carlos Eusebio, claiming to be illegitimate children of the deceased, opposed the petition. They contended the decedent was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga, and prayed for dismissal on grounds of improper venue. The lower court, by order dated March 10, 1954, overruled the objection and granted the petition. The oppositors appealed.
The decedent, Andres Eusebio, had always been domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga, where he had his home and properties. Due to a heart condition, and upon the advice of his son, Dr. Jesus Eusebio (a resident of Quezon City), the decedent bought a house and lot at 889-A España Extension, Quezon City, on October 29, 1952. While transferring his belongings to this new house, he suffered a stroke and was taken to his son’s residence in Quezon City. He was later brought to the UST Hospital in Manila where, on November 26, 1952, he contracted marriage in articulo mortis with his common-law wife, Concepcion Villanueva. He died in the hospital two days later, on November 28, 1952, without ever having stayed or slept in the Quezon City house he purchased.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal had jurisdiction to appoint an administrator over the estate of Andres Eusebio, which hinges on the determination of his residence (domicile) at the time of his death for purposes of venue under Rule 75, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court and dismissed the petition for administration. The Court held that the decedent, Andres Eusebio, was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga, at the time of his death; therefore, the Court of First Instance of Rizal had no authority to appoint an administrator, as venue was improperly laid.
The Court ruled that the decedent’s domicile of origin was San Fernando, Pampanga, where he resided for over seventy years. A domicile once acquired is retained until a new one is gained. To establish a domicile of choice, three conditions are essential: (1) capacity and freedom of choice; (2) physical presence at the place chosen; and (3) intention to stay therein permanently. While the decedent had the capacity and was physically present in Quezon City prior to his death, there was no satisfactory proof of his intent to reside there permanently. The purchase of the Quezon City property was motivated by his illness and the need to be near his doctor for treatment, which does not ordinarily constitute a change of domicile. The decedent did not alienate his house in San Fernando, some of his children remained there, and in documents executed shortly before his death (the deed of sale for the Quezon City property and his marriage contract), he declared his residence as San Fernando, Pampanga. The presumption in favor of retaining an existing domicile, especially a domicile of origin, was not overcome by the evidence. Consequently, the proper venue for the settlement of his estate was in Pampanga.