157912

Alice Sheker died and her estate was left under the administration of Victoria
Medina. Alice left a holographic will which was admitted to probate by the
Regional Trial Court of Iligan City. The trial court issued an order for all
creditors to file their claims against the estate. In compliance therewith, Alan
Joseph Sheker filed a contingent money claim in the amount of P206,250.00
representing the amount of his commission as an agent for selling some
properties for Alice; and another P275k as reimbursements for expenses he
incurred.

Medina moved for the dismissal of Alan Shekers claim alleging among others
that the money claim filed by Alan Sheker is void because the latter did not attach
a certification of non-forum shopping thereto.

Petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate
proceeding the rules requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, a written
explanation for non-personal filing, and the payment of docket fees upon filing of
the claim. He insists that Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides that
rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only in a suppletory
manner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the money claim filed by Alan Sheker is void.

HELD: No.

Section 2, Rule 72, Part II of the same Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of Civil Actions. - In the absence of special
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as
practicable, applicable in special proceedings.

This means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions
may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so
would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. Provisions of the Rules of Court
requiring a certification of non-forum shopping for complaints and initiatory
pleadings, a written explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the
payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way
obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings
such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present case.

However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the certification of non-forum
shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. In the
case at bar, the probate proceeding was initiated NOT by Alan Shekers money
claim but rather upon the filing of the petition for allowance of the Alice Shekers
will.

A money claim in a probate proceeding is like a creditors motion for claims which
is to be recognized and taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the
properties of the estate. And as a motion, its office is not to initiate new litigation,
but to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in
which the motion is filed. A motion is not an independent right or remedy, but is
confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some
question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with
and dependent upon the principal remedy.

133743
During his lifetime, Felicisimo (Rodolfos dad) contracted three marriages.
His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit. Virginia predeceased Felicisimo.

Five years later, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom he had
a son, Tobias. However, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a Complaint for
Divorce before the Family Court of Hawaii, which issued a Decree Granting
Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody. Felicisimo thereafter, married
Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos. He had no children with
respondent but lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to
his death. Respondent Felicidad filed a petition for letters of administration before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Respondent alleged that she is the
widow of Felicisimo; that, at the time of his death, the decedent was residing at
100 San Juanico Street, New Alabang Village, Alabang, Metro Manila.

Petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of the children of Felicisimo by his first
marriage, filed a motion to dismiss
9
on the grounds of improper venue and failure
to state a cause of action. Rodolfo claimed that the petition for letters of
administration should have been filed in the Province of Laguna because this was
Felicisimos place of residence prior to his death.

In the instant consolidated petitions, Edgar and Rodolfo insist that the
venue of the subject petition for letters of administration was improperly laid
because at the time of his death, Felicisimo was a resident of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
They contend that pursuant to our rulings in Nuval v. Guray
37
and Romualdez v.
RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City,
38
residence is synonymous with domicile which
denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one intends to return.
They claim that a person can only have one domicile at any given time. Since
Felicisimo never changed his domicile, the petition for letters of administration
should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

Issue: Whether venue was properly laid.

Ruling: Under Section 1,
39
Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for
letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional
Trial Court of the province in which he resides at the time of his death.

For purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the residence of a
person is his personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of
abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he
resides therein with continuity and consistency.
43
Hence, it is possible that a
person may have his residence in one place and domicile in another.

From the foregoing, we find that Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang,
Muntinlupa for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate.
Consequently, the subject petition for letters of administration was validly filed in
the Regional Trial Court
50
which has territorial jurisdiction over Alabang,
Muntinlupa.