Anda di halaman 1dari 2

16 EUSEBIO V. EUSEBIO (1956) 2.

WON the CFI (Rizal) has authority to appoint an


Rule 73 | VENUE & PROCESSES administrator of the estate of the deceased
Ponente J. CONCEPCION
Held
1. WON the decedent was domiciled in San Fernando
Summary Pampanga
1. Eugenio filed with CFI Rizal a petition for his
appointment as the administrator of his father’s estate YES. Up to his death, for 70 years, the deceased has always
which was opposed by the respondents. Eugenio claimed been domiciled in SF, Pampanga where he had his home and
that his father resided in QC but the respondents claimed properties. There is a presumption that he retained such
that he is domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. Thus, domicile in the absence of a satisfactory proof to the contrary.
the case of dismissal. “A domicile once acquired is retained until a new domicile is
2. WON CFI Rizal has authority to appoint an administrator gained.” There was also no proof that the decedent intended to
of the estate of the deceased stay permanently in QC. (When he was hospitalized after
3. NO. Venue has been improperly laid. The proceedings transferring his things to his house in QC, he never really
should have been instituted in Pampanga, where the stayed there). Domicile is not commonly changed by presence
deceased resided for 70 years. in a place merely for one’s own health.

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).

Anda mungkin juga menyukai