Facts NO. The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 1 is not applicable in
1. The petitioner in this case is Eugenio Eusebio (legitimate this case because Rule 2 is the proper rule.
child) and the respondents are his half-brothers/sisters
(illegitimate children) 2. WON the CFI (Rizal) has authority to appoint an
2. Eugenio filed with CFI Rizal a petition for his administrator of the estate of the deceased
appointment as the administrator of his father’s estate
which was opposed by the respondents. Eugenio claimed NO. CFI Rizal doesn’t have the authority to appoint an
that his father resided in QC but the respondents claimed administrator of the estate of deceased because the venue was
that he is domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. improperly laid. If proceedings for the settlement of the estate
3. Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the case on the of a deceased person are instituted in two or more courts, and
ground that the venue has been improperly filed. the question of venue is raised therein, the first court which
first took cognizance of the case shall decide the issue.
Issue However, if the venue has been improperly laid, the pending
1. WON the decedent was domiciled in San Fernando case should be dismissed and the corresponding proceedings
Pampanga
may be initiated in the proper court (which is the CFI in
pampanga).