Case Summary (G.R. No. 216107)
Issues
- Whether petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration bars relief.
- Whether direct filing before the Supreme Court bypassed the hierarchy of courts.
- Whether the RTC judge gravely abused discretion by motu proprio dismissing the petition on venue grounds.
Motion for Reconsideration
Although certiorari ordinarily requires a prior motion for reconsideration, exceptions apply where the same issues have been raised and addressed by the trial court. Here, the RTC treated petitioner’s Comment as a motion to reconsider and ruled on the venue question in its assailed order, excusing formal compliance.
Hierarchy of Courts
Certiorari under Rule 65 should first be filed with the Court of Appeals. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court is allowed only upon compelling reasons—pure questions of law, exceptional delay, or urgency. Given the advanced age of heirs, the elapsed time since the decedent’s death, and the purely legal nature of the venue issue, the Supreme Court relaxed the hierarchy requirement.
Venue versus Jurisdiction
Rule 73 §1 fixes venue—the locality for estate proceedings—based on the decedent’s residence at death; it does not confer or remove jurisdiction. All RTCs have jurisdiction over probate cases under the Judiciary Act. Venue is procedural and waivable; objections must be raised by motion to dismiss or are deemed waived.
Grave Abuse of Discretion
A court may dismiss motu proprio only for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, or prescription. The RTC’s premature dismissal on venue grounds, without awaiting any party’s objection, prepubl
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 216107)
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioner Juan M. Gacad, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the late Ermelinda Gacad with RTC Branch 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
- The testator died on May 30, 2013 in Quezon City; her death certificate lists Marikina Heights, Marikina City as her residence at time of death.
- RTC Branch 27, in a July 1, 2014 order, directed petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for violation of venue rules (Section 1, Rule 73, RRC in conjunction with Section 4, Rule 4, 1997 RCp).
- RTC Branch 27 opined that venue for probate lies only in the RTC of the province or city where the decedent resided at death—i.e., Marikina City.
- Petitioner filed a Comment disputing the court’s motu proprio dismissal power on venue grounds, arguing location of property (Nueva Vizcaya) and that improper venue is not a dismissal ground under the Rules.
RTC’s September 23, 2014 Order (Assailed Order)
- Dismissed the petition for utter violation of the rule on venue as mandated by Section 1, Rule 73, RRC, in conjunction with Section 4(a), Rule 4, 1997 RCp.
- Held petitioner’s Comment insufficient to justify retaining the petition on the docket.
- Asserted that venue questions are foundational facts relating to jurisdiction and approved motu proprio dismissal since petitioner was given an earlier show‐cause order.
Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 216107)
- Pet