Spec Pro Class 2020

Facts:

 

This case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

 

Senator Mariano Cuenco died, survived by a widow and two minor children; and children from a former marriage, one of which is the herein respondent Lourdes Cuenco.

 

Lourdes filed in the CFI of Cebu for Petition of Letters of Administration, she alleged that her father died intestate and he was a resident of Cebu when he died.

 

On the other hand, a week from the action filed by Lourdes, herein petitioner Rosa Cuenco filed a Probate Proceedings of the last will and testament of the decedent. Also, Rosa upon finding out of the proceeding in Cebu filed an Opposition and Motion to Dismiss therewith. CFI of Cebu, issued an order holding in abeyance its resolution on petitioner's motion to dismiss "until after CFI of Quezon City shall have acted on the petition for probate of the purported last will and testament of Senator Mariano.

 

Lourdes, instead of assailing the decision of the CFI of Cebu, filed in the CFI of Quezon City an Opposition and Motion to Dismiss, opposing the probate of the will of the decedent and assail the jurisdiction of the aforesaid court. Lourdes, prayed for the dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue.

 

The Quezon City court denied the Motion to dismiss filed by respondents, the reason thereof is the "precedence of probate proceeding over an intestate proceeding" and that the residence of the late senator at the time of his death, was in Quezon City. Lourdes moved to reconsider the decision of the court twice and both were denied. Later the CFI of Quezon City admitted the will to probate and appointed Rosa as executrix.

 

Lourdes, instead of appealing from CFI Quezon City, filed a special civil action of certiorari with motion for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals. The CA decided in favor of Lourdes and directed the CFI of Quezon City to refrain from proceeding and declaring all actions of the said court annulled. Hence this petition with the Supreme Court.

 

Issue:

 

Whether or not the appellate court erred in law in issuing the writ of prohibition against the Quezon City court

 

Ruling:

​

The Court finds the appellate court erred in law in issuing the writ of prohibition against the Quezon City court.

 

The Quezon City court first acquired jurisdiction. The rule on venue does not state that the court with whom the estate or intestate petition is first filed acquires exclusive jurisdiction. Rule 73 Section provides that "the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other courts.

 

The CFI of Cebu where the first petition in relation to the settlement of estate of the decedent was filed issued an order holding the same in abeyance and deferred to the Quezon City court, awaiting its action on the petition for probate before that court. Hence, the CFI of Cebu did not acquire jurisdiction.