Scribd
Upload
22 views2 pages

Venue and Jurisdiction in Estate Cases

This case discusses whether venue was properly laid in the case of the estate of Garcia. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna did not have jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to try a case based on its substance and facts, while venue deals with the location of the court with proper jurisdiction, which is often based on the location of real property involved. According to the Rules of Court, venue is proper in the court that has jurisdiction over the area where real property related to the case is located. In this case, the Court of Appeals found that venue was not properly laid in Calamba, Laguna.

Uploaded by

Joshua Peralta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views2 pages

Venue and Jurisdiction in Estate Cases

This case discusses whether venue was properly laid in the case of the estate of Garcia. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna did not have jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to try a case based on its substance and facts, while venue deals with the location of the court with proper jurisdiction, which is often based on the location of real property involved. According to the Rules of Court, venue is proper in the court that has jurisdiction over the area where real property related to the case is located. In this case, the Court of Appeals found that venue was not properly laid in Calamba, Laguna.

Uploaded by

Joshua Peralta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

4.

Case Title:

VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE v. COURT OF APPEALS


G.R. No. L-40502 | November 29, 1976

Facts:

Virginia Garcia Fule filed with the CFI of Laguna, at Calamba, for a petition moved ex parte for her
appointment as special administratrix over the estate of Garcia, who died intestate in the City of Manila,
leaving real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna, and in other places, within the
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court." A motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa, contending that
the order appointing Fule as special administratrix was issued without jurisdiction and prayed that she be
appointed special administratrix of the estate, in lieu of Fule, and as regular administratrix after due
hearing. While this reconsideration motion was pending, Preciosa filed a motion to remove Fule as
special administratrix alleging, besides the jurisdictional ground, that her appointment was obtained
through erroneous, misleading and/or incomplete misrepresentations and has adverse interest against
the estate. Judge Malvar ruled denying Preciosa B. Garcia's motion to reconsider the appointment of Fule
and that Preciosa had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and had waived her objections thereto by
praying to be appointed as special and regular administratrix of the estate. An omnibus motion was filed
by Preciosa to clarify or reconsider the foregoing order of Judge Malvar, in view of previous court order
limiting the authority of the special administratrix to the making of an inventory. Preciosa also asked for
the resolution of her motion to dismiss the petitions for lack of cause of action, and also that filed in behalf
of Agustina Garcia. Resolution of her motions to substitute and remove the special administratrix was
likewise prayed for. Preciosa and Agustina B. Garcia commenced a special action for certiorari and/or
prohibition and preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals to annul the proceedings before Judge
Malvar of the Court of First Instance of Laguna. Court of Appeals affirmed stating the CFI of Calamba
Laguna has no jurisdiction over the case. Hence, this present petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the venue is improperly laid

Held:

Yes. Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case base on the merits or the
substance of the facts. It is a substantive aspect of the trial proceeding. It is granted by law or by the
constitution and cannot be waived or stipulated.

On the other hand, Rule 4 of Rules of Court define venue as the proper court which has jurisdiction over
the area wherein real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. Venue is the location of the court
with jurisdiction. It is more on convenience purposes. It’s more on procedural aspect of the case. In some
cases, it may be waived or stipulated by the parties.
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court states that “If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of
administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he
resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance
of any province in which he had estate.

Doctrine:

Rule 4 of Rules of Court define venue as the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. Venue is the location of the court with
jurisdiction

You might also like