03 In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of the Late
Kaw Singco (alias Co Chi Seng) Sy Oa v. Co Ho
(1943)
Rule 73 | Venue and Process
Ponente J. Moran
Summary
1. Co Ho seeks a reconsideration of an SC decision
proclaiming that residence does not dictate
jurisdiction, only venue with respect to probate
cases.
2. The issue is whether or not the last place of
residence of the deceased determines jurisdiction.
3. The court held that residence in probate cases
only dictates venue, not jurisdiction. To rule
otherwise would mean that proceedings in a
probate case not filed in the place where decedent
last resided would be nullified if a subsequent
oppositor assails validity of the jurisdiction even if
said proceedings have already been finished.
Facts
1. The petitioner in this case is Sy Oa, the
administratrix of Kaw Singco’s estate, and the
respondent is Co Ho who assails the issue on
jurisdiction.
2. Sy Oa is the administratrix of the intestate estate
of Kaw Singco. During the intestate proceedings,
an opposition is filed by one Co Ho.
3. The latter claims that the court had no jurisdiction
over the subject matter because the proceedings
were not filed in the province where the deceased
last resided.
4. Subsequently, the SC issued a resolution stating
that there is no issue with respect to jurisdiction
but there is merely a question of venue.
5. Oppositor-appellant Co Ho now seeks the
reconsideration of the said resolution.
Issue
1. WON the last place of residence of the deceased is
an element of jurisdiction.
a. No. It merely dictates venue.
Held
1. Erroneous Interpretation of Jurisdiction
a. The interpretation of the Court of Article VIII,
Section 2, no. 3 of the Constitution and Section
138, no. 3 of the Revised Administrative Code
in Reyes v. Diaz and Bernabe v. Vergara is
erroneous.
b. In Reyes v. Diaz, the Court said that the term
jurisdiction refers to the subject-matter only,
unless an exception is clearly intended by
reason of its employment in a broader sense.
2. Residence dictates venue, not jurisdiction.
a. Section 600 of Act no. 190, providing that the
estate of a deceased person shall be settled in
the province where he had last resided, could
not have been intended as defining the
jurisdiction of the probate court over the subject
matter because such deals merely with
procedural matters, and as this court has said
 time and again, procedure is one thing and
jurisdiction over the subject matter is another.
b. What would happen if residence dictates
jurisdiction over the subject-matter: A probate
case has been initiated in a CFI of a province
where the deceased had not resided. All the
parties, however, including all the creditors,
have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of
the court. The case is about to finished except
for a claim of a creditor who voluntarily filed it
with the same court but on appeal from an
adverse decision, raises for the first time in this
Court the question of jurisdiction of the trial
court for lack of the residence of the deceased
in the province. If we consider such question of
residence as one affecting the jurisdiction of
the trial court over the subject-matter, the effect
shall be that the whole proceedings will have to
be annulled and the same case will have to be
commenced anew before another court of the
same rank in another province.
3. The law on jurisdiction (Act No. 136, Sec. 56, No. 5)
confers upon the CFI jurisdiction over all probate
cases independently of the place of residence of the
deceased. Since, however, there are many CFIs in
the Philippines, the law of procedure fixes the venue
or the place where each case shall be brought. Thus,
the place of residence of the deceased is not an
element of jurisdiction over the subject matter but
merely of venue. And it is upon this ground that in the
new Rules of Court in the province where the estate
of a deceased person shall be settled is properly
called “venue.”