Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
the decesed at the time of his death in determining the proper venue of the
proceeding. The said case enunciated that domicile is not commonly changed by
presence in a place merely for one owns health even if coupled with knowledge
that one will never again be able, on account of illness, to return home. Domicile
once acquired is retained until a new domicile is gained. It is not changed by
presence in a place for ones own health. Having resided for over seventy years in
Pampanga, the presumption is that Andres retained such domicile. However, this
rule is in contrary to the rulings in the case of Fule vs. CA wherein the Supreme
Court used the residence of the deceased at the time of his death in the
determination of the venue of the proceeding. In the Fule case, it enunciated that in
the application of venue statutes and rules Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised
Rules of Court is of such nature residence rather than domicile is the significant
factor. The case further discussed that the residence simply requires bodily presence
as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that
place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. No particular length of time of
residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary.