Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8409)
Facts:
Eugenio Eusebio v. Amanda Eusebio, G.R. No. L-8409, December 28, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.This is a petition for appointment as administrator of the estate of the deceased Andres Eusebio, filed by Eugenio Eusebio (petitioner/appellee) on November 16, 1953 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. On December 4, 1953, Amanda, Virginia, Juan, Delfin, Vicente and Carlos Eusebio (oppositors/appellants) filed an opposition alleging they were illegitimate children of the deceased and that Andres was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga, thus challenging venue and praying that the Rizal proceedings be dismissed.
The CFI of Rizal, by order dated March 10, 1954, overruled the opposition and granted Eugenio’s petition. The oppositors appealed from that order to the Supreme Court. The appeal turned on where Andres Eusebio was domiciled at the time of his death on November 28, 1952 — Quezon City (where he purchased a house at 889-A Espana Extension on October 29, 1952) or San Fernando, Pampanga (his long-time home).
The record shows that Andres had lived in San Fernando for over seventy years, purchased a house in Quezon City on advice of his physician because of ill health, was taken to his son Dr. Jesus Eusebio’s residence and later to UST Hospital where he married in articulo mortis on November 26, 1952 and died two days later. He never actually lived in the Espana Extension house and retained ownership of his San Fernando residence; several indicia (deed acknowledgment, residence certificates, and the marriage contract) listed San Fernando as his residence.
The Rizal trial court excluded certain exhibits (the deed and marriage contract) and restricted appellants from proving filiation and domicile on the ground they had contested venue and thus had not submitted to the court’s jurisdiction; the court nonetheless later held appellants had submitted by cross-examining the petitioner. Meanwhile, appellants had filed a petition for settlement of the intestate estate in Pampanga (re...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance of Rizal have jurisdiction to settle the estate — i.e., was venue properly laid in Rizal under Rule 75, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court?
- Where was Andres Eusebio domiciled at the time of his death — San Fernando, Pampanga, or Quezon City?
- Did the trial court err in excluding Exhibits 1 and 2 and in the procedure by which it refused appellants the opportunity to prove their...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)