G.R. No. 231145 - Social Security System vs. Hon. Gina M. Bibat-Palamos, in her capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 108, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City

Ask AI

G.R. No. 231145: Social Security System vs. Hon. Gina M. Bibat-Palamos, in her capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of Bra...

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: Gacad, Jr. vs. Corpuz

Case: G.R. No. 216107

Decision Date: Aug 3, 2022

Petitioner sought probate of a will in Nueva Vizcaya, but the RTC dismissed it motu proprio for improper venue, as decedent resided in Marikina. SC ruled venue objections must be raised by parties, not the court, and reinstated the petition.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 231145)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Decedent and Testatrix

Ermelinda Gacad executed her last will and testament and died on May 30, 2013 in Quezon City.
Her Certificate of Death indicates Marikina Heights, Marikina City as her residence at the time of death.

Petition for Probate in RTC Bayombong

Juan M. Gacad, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of the will with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
The RTC raffled the case to Branch 27 and, on July 1, 2014, directed the petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for improper venue under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court and Section 4(a), Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Lower Court Disposition

Petitioner filed a Comment arguing that (a) venue objections must be raised by motion to dismiss or in the answer, (b) the trial court cannot motu proprio dismiss for venue, and (c) the decedent’s property was in Nueva Vizcaya.
On September 23, 2014, the RTC issued the Assailed Order dismissing the petition for “utter violation of the rule on venue.”

Recourse to the Supreme Court

Petitioner invoked certiorari, alleging (a) grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio dismissal, (b) misapplication of venue rules, and (c) that domicile affects venue only, not jurisdiction.
The public respondent maintained that Section 1, Rule 73 confers jurisdiction on the court of the decedent’s residence and that proper procedure was observed by directing a show-cause.

Issues:

Whether the petition should be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Assailed Order.
Whether petitioner violated the hierarchy of courts by filing directly with the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals.
Whether the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio dismissing the petition for probate on the ground of improper venue.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END