Uriarte vs CFI

URIARTE vs. CFI Vicente Uriarte vs. CFI Negros Occidental, CFI Manila, Juan Uriarte Zamanoca and Higinio Uriarte May 29, 1970 Dizon, J. Short version: Vicente filed a petition for the settlement of the estate of his father in Negros. Subsequently, a petition for probate of the will of his father was filed in Manila. Court held that the proper court to try the case was Negros. The deceased was a non-resident alien and while his properties were not in just one place, it was Negros who first took cognizance of the case. However, the will was already probated in Manila and the Court blamed Vicente for being negligent in raising the improper venue issue in time. The probate of the will was affirmed. FACTS November 6, 1961 – Vicente filed with CFI Negros a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Don Juan Uriarte alleging therein that as a natural son of the latter, he was the sole heir and that during the lifetime of said decedent, Vicente had instituted a civil case in CFI Negros for his compulsory acknowledgment as such natural son CFI Negros appointed the PNB as special administrator and later set the date for the hearing of the petition and ordered that the requisite notices be published in accordance with law. The record discloses, however, that, for one reason or another, PNB never actually qualified as special administrator. December 19, 1961 – Higinio Uriarte filed an opposition to the petition alleging that he was a nephew of the deceased Juan Uriarte who had executed a Last Will and Testament in Spain, a duly authenticated copy whereof has been requested and which shall be submitted to the court upon receipt and further questioning Vicente’s capacity and interest to commence the intestate proceeding. August 28, 1962 – Juan Uriarte Zamacona commenced a special proceeding in CFI Manila for the probate of a document alleged to be the last will of the deceased Juan Uriarte and filed with CFI Negros a Motion to Dismiss on these grounds:  As a deceased left a last will, there was no basis to proceed with the intestate proceedings  Vicente Uriarte had no legal personality and interest to initiate the intestate proceedings, he not being an acknowledged natural son of the decedent. Vicente opposed the MTD contending that, as CFI Negros was first to take cognizance of the settlement of the estate of Juan Uriarte, it had acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the same. CFI Negros granted Juan Uriarte Zamacona’s MTD and dismissed the proceeding before it. MR denied. He filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal. The administrator appointed by CFI Manila objected to the approval of the record on appeal. While this was pending, Vicente Uriarte filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Therefore, CFI Negros disapproved the record on appeal to give way to the certiorari. Vicente Uriarte filed an Omnibus Motion in CFI Manila asking for leave to intervene therein, for the dismissal of the petition and for the annulment of the proceedings had in the special proceeding therein. Motion was denied. It appears from the records that Vicente had filed a civil case in CFi Negros during the lifetime of Juan Uriarte to obtain judgment for his compulsory acknowledgement as his natural child. It is likewise clear that at the time he filed the action, as well as when he commenced the petition for settlement of estate, he had not yet been acknowledged as natural son of Juan Uriarte. The record further discloses that the special proceeding before CFI Negros has not gone further than the appointment of PNB as special administrator (who failed to qualify). On the other hand, CFI Manila admitted to probate the document submitted to it, as thelast will of Juan Uriarte, the petition for probate appearing not to have been contested. ISSUE: Whether Juan Uriarte Zamacona should have filed the petition for probate of the last will of Juan Uriarte with CFI Negros or was entitled to commenced the corresponding separate proceedings in CFI Manila REASONING Rule 73, Section: the estate of a decedent inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, shall be in the court of first instance in the province in which he resided at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the court of first instance of any province in which he had estate.

The deceased Juan Uriarte was a non-resident alien. Therefore, the CFIs in provinces where he left any property have concurrent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proper special proceedings for the settlement of his estate. Vicente argues that when CFI Negros took cognizance, CFI Manila no longer had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the special proceeding. It cannot be denied that a special proceeding intended to effect the distribution of the estate of a deceased person, whether in accordance with the law on intestate succession or in accordance with his will, is a "probate matter" or a proceeding for the settlement of his estate. It is equally true, however, that in accordance with settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction, testate proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is found that the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. These facts support the view that Juan Uriarte Zamacona should have submitted the will for probate in CFI Negros either in a separate special proceeding or in an appropriate motion in the already pending special proceeding: 1. It is not in accord with public policy and the orderly and inexpensive administration of justice to unnecessarily multiply litigation, especially if several courts would be involved. 2. When Higinio Uriarte filed an opposition to Vicente’s petition for the issuance of letters of sdministration, he had already informed the Negros Court that the deceased Juan Uriarte had left a will in Spain, of which a copy had been requested for submission to CFI Negros. When Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed his MTD in CFI Negros, he had submitted there a copy of the alleged will of the decedent, from which fact it may be inferred that he knew before filing the petition for probate with the Manila Court that there was already a special proceeding pending in CFi negros for the settlement of the estate of the same deceased person. It is well settled that wrong venue is merely a waivable procedural defect, and in the light of the circumstances obtaining in this case, Vicente has waived the right to raise such objection or is precluded from doing so by laches. He knew of the existence of the will since 1961 when Higinio Urirate opposed the initial petition in CFI Negros. He was also served with notice of the alleged will and of the filing of petition for its probate when Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed an MTD in CFI Negros on 1962. He only filed the omnibus motion in the Manila Court on April 1963. By then, The Manila Court had already appointed an administrator and had admitted the will to probate. Toa llow him now to assail the exercise of jurisdiction over the probate of the will by the Manila court and the validity of all the proceedings therein would put a premium on his negligence. SC is not inclined to annul proceedings regularly had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper venue therefor, if the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in some other court of similar jurisdiction; more so in a case like the present where the objection against said proceedings is raised too late. DISPOITIVE petition dismissed