Facts:

The case involves two petitions: G.R. No. L-40502 filed by Virginia Garcia Fule and G.R. No. L-42670 filed by the same petitioner against the Honorable Court of Appeals and Preciosa B. Garcia, the latter being the principal respondent. It revolves around the estate of the deceased Amado G. Garcia, who died on April 26, 1973, in Manila. Virginia G. Fule filed for letters of administration in the Court of First Instance of Laguna (Calamba) on May 2, 1973, asserting that the decedent had properties in Laguna and elsewhere, while simultaneously applying for her appointment as special administratrix. The presiding judge, Severo A. Malvar, granted her request on the same day. This action was contested by Preciosa B. Garcia, the surviving spouse of Amado G. Garcia, claiming that she should be appointed as the special administratrix. She highlighted that Virginia G. Fule was a debtor to the estate and that the original notice of the petition was not adequately served to all interested p

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Two interrelated cases were consolidated: one petition by Virginia G. Fule filed before the Court of First Instance of Laguna (Sp. Proc. No. 27-C) and a later petition by Preciosa B. Garcia filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City (Sp. Proc. No. Q-19738).
• The dispute centers on the proper venue for the settlement of the estate of Amado G. Garcia and the authority to appoint a special administrator, challenged by conflicting claims over the decedent’s last residence.

Initial Petition and Appointment of Special Administratrix

• On May 2, 1973, Virginia G. Fule filed a petition for letters of administration in Laguna, alleging that Amado G. Garcia died intestate in Manila and left property in Laguna among other places.
• Simultaneously, she moved ex parte for her appointment as special administratrix, which was granted by Judge Severo A. Malvar of the Court of First Instance of Laguna.
• Preciosa B. Garcia, contesting the earlier appointment on several grounds, including lack of proper notice, jurisdictional defects, and adverse interest due to being a debtor of the estate, filed a motion for reconsideration on May 8, 1973.

Subsequent Motions and Supplemental Proceedings

• While the motion for reconsideration was pending, Preciosa B. Garcia filed additional motions on May 29, 1973 to remove Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix, asserting that Fule’s appointment was procured by misrepresentations and was contrary to the interest of the estate.
• The notice of the petition was duly published in a weekly newspaper, and on June 6, 1973, Virginia G. Fule filed a supplemental petition seeking appointment as regular administratrix with modifications to initial allegations (notably on the decedent’s last residence and the identity of legal heirs).
• Preciosa B. Garcia opposed the supplemental petition, arguing that jurisdiction had not been properly acquired and that the original petition was deficient.

Development of Judicial Orders and Motions

• Judge Malvar issued a series of orders:
• Denying Preciosa’s Mo.Reconsideration of the original May 2, 1973 appointment and admitting the supplemental petition (order dated July 2, 1973).
• On August 31, 1973, Preciosa filed a motion to dismiss the petition on grounds of improper venue, lack of interest of Virginia G. Fule, and other jurisdictional challenges.
• Preciosa filed various motions on November 14, 1973 to enjoin or remove Fule from her office and to dismiss the petitions for lack of cause or improper filing.
• Further orders by Judge Malvar on November 28, 1973 and December 19, 1973 addressed:
• The scope of the special administrator’s powers (including inventory and custody of documents) and the extension of such powers in spite of previous limitations.
• Denial of Preciosa’s motions to substitute or remove the special administratrix.
• Additional motions for reconsideration were subsequently filed by Preciosa on January 7, 1974.
• Judge Malvar finally issued orders in March and July 1974 clarifying responsibilities—such as the delivery of certificates of title, cash advances, and other estate documents—from relevant parties.
• A special action for certiorari and/or prohibition, as well as a motion for preliminary injunction, was initiated by Preciosa on July 26, 1974 before the Court of Appeals.
• On January 30, 1975, the Court of Appeals annulled the proceedings before Judge Malvar for lack of jurisdiction.
• Before the appellate decision could be communicated to Virginia G. Fule, Preciosa filed a separate petition for letters of administration before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Sp. Proc. No. Q-19738) and was subsequently appointed as special administratrix on February 10, 1975 by Judge Vicente G. Ericta.
• The dispute over venue surfaced when it was determined that Amado G. Garcia’s last place of residence, as evidenced by his death certificate and additional documents, was at 11 Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City, not Calamba, Laguna.
• Numerous orders and motions followed, including Preciosa’s “Urgent Petition for Authority to Pay Estate Obligations” on December 11, 1975, and Virginia G. Fule’s special appearance questioning venue and jurisdiction.
• A subsequent restraining order was issued in February 1976 related to the petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-42670).

Consolidation and Final Judicial Determination

• The trial court and Court of Appeals dealt with multiple issues relating to venue, jurisdiction, and the appointment of a special administratrix.
• The core factual dispute was whether Amado G. Garcia “resided” in Quezon City or Calamba, Laguna at the time of his death, which would determine proper venue.
• Preciosa B. Garcia, by asserting herself as the surviving spouse with a higher preferential right, contended against Virginia G. Fule’s appointment.
• The case was elevated to the Supreme Court, where it was eventually consolidated under G.R. Nos. L-40502 and L-42670.

Issue:

Venue Determination in Estate Settlement

• What is the proper interpretation of the term “resides” in Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, specifically regarding whether it denotes actual residence (physical/bodily presence) or legal residence (domicile) of the decedent?
• Whether venue for the probate proceedings was properly laid in the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna given the evidence regarding the decedent’s last residence.

Appointment and Eligibility of Special Administratrix

• Whether the appointment of Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix was proper, especially in light of Preciosa B. Garcia’s claims:
• That Fule’s appointment lacked jurisdiction due to defects in notice and procedural deficiencies.
• That there was an inherent conflict of interest as Fule was allegedly a debtor of the estate.
• Whether Preciosa B. Garcia, as the surviving spouse with presumptive benefits under the law, should be preferred over Fule in the appointment as special administratrix.

Procedural and Jurisdictional Considerations

• Whether the subsequent filings, motions, and supplemental petitions by both parties constituted a waiver of objections to venue, as well as how such waiver impacts the final determination of jurisdiction.
• The impact of previous orders—both from Judge Malvar and the appellate decision annulling the proceedings in Laguna—on the proper exercise of jurisdiction and authority of the special administratrix.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)