Roberts vs. Leonidas (G.R. No.

L-55509, April 27, 1984)

 Philippine intestate proceeding (CFI Manila, Branch 20):
o January 9, 1978 – Ethel filed intestate case and
Facts: Edward Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died in was appointed special administratrix.
1977, leaving behind his second wife, their children, and o Maxine later withdrew opposition; Ethel, Maxine,
children from a previous marriage. He had executed two wills and Pete appointed joint administrators.
in the United States: one for his Philippine estate and another o Estate properties sold with court approval.
for his foreign estate. Both wills favored his second wife and o July 27, 1979 – Court issued order of partition
their children but also provided for the children of his first adjudicating 4/8 to Maxine and 1/8 each to four
marriage. children.
o Will was ignored in intestate proceeding.
Initially, one of his children from the first marriage, Ethel  Petition for probate in PH (CFI Manila, Branch 38):
Grimm Roberts, filed a petition for the intestate settlement o September 8, 1980 – Maxine, Pete, and Linda filed
of his estate in a Manila court (Branch 20), claiming he died petition to probate Grimm’s wills (already probated
without a will. This court approved a partition of the estate. in Utah), annul the partition in the intestate case,
and revoke letters of administration.
o Ethel moved to dismiss; motion denied.
However, Grimm's second wife and her children later filed a
separate petition in another Manila court (Branch 38) to
 Ethel’s petition to the Supreme Court:

probate the two wills (which had already been probated in o Alleged that the testate proceeding should be
dismissed or consolidated with the intestate case.
Utah, USA). They also sought to annul the partition from the
intestate proceeding. Ethel Roberts moved to dismiss this
second petition, arguing that the first court had already ISSUES:
acquired exclusive jurisdiction. The second court denied her
motion. 1. Whether a testate proceeding is proper despite an
existing intestate proceeding.
2. Whether the probate of the will is mandatory even if
Issue: Did the second court (Branch 38) have jurisdiction to the estate has been partially distributed in intestate
entertain a petition for the probate of a will and annul a prior proceedings.
partition, even after an intestate proceeding had been
approved by another branch of the same court? RULING:

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the second court did  Yes, a testate proceeding is proper because the decedent
not commit grave abuse of discretion. It held that a died with two wills.
testate proceeding (a case with a will) is always proper and  Probate is mandatory — no will shall pass either real or
mandatory if a person dies with a will. The Court emphasized personal property unless it is proved and allowed (Art. 838,
that it is "anomalous" for the estate of a person who died with Civil Code; Sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court).
a will to be settled in an intestate proceeding.  It is anomalous to settle the estate of a person who died
testate in intestate proceedings.

The Court's a central doctrine is that the probate of a will is

 The intestate case should be consolidated with the
testate proceeding, and the judge in the testate proceeding
mandatory and has precedence over an intestate should hear both.
settlement. Since the existence of a will was established, the
intestate case should be consolidated with the testate
DISPOSITION:
proceeding, with the judge handling the testate case taking
charge. The first court's approval of the partition was thus a
nullity because it was based on the false premise that the  Petition dismissed.
decedent died intestate.  Temporary restraining order dissolved.
 Ethel may file opposition to the probate petition within 20 days
from notice of judgment’s finality.
FACTS:
 Juanita Grimm Morris to be served with all orders and notices
in the testate case.
 Edward M. Grimm, an American residing in Manila, died on
November 27, 1977, survived by: HIGHLIGHTED DOCTRINES (Special Proceedings):
o Second wife Maxine Tate Grimm and their two
children (Pete and Linda).
1. Mandatory Probate of Wills
o Two children from first marriage (Ethel Grimm
Roberts and Juanita Grimm Morris).
o Art. 838, Civil Code; Sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court
— A will has no legal effect until it is proved and
 Grimm executed two wills in 1959:
allowed in probate proceedings.
o One disposing of Philippine estate (conjugal with o Cases: Guevara v. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479; Baluyot
Maxine). v. Pano, 71 SCRA 86.
o One disposing of foreign estate (no provision for 2. No Intestate Proceedings if Decedent is Testate
Ethel and Juanita except in the PH will). o Settlement of estate must follow the nature of
 Utah probate: succession:
o On March 7, 1978, Maxine petitioned for probate in  Testate → probate of will.
Utah.  Intestate → only if there is no will or will
o On April 10, 1978, the Utah court admitted the wills is invalid.
and codicil to probate. 3. Consolidation of Proceedings
o On April 25, 1978, heirs entered into a Utah o When both testate and intestate cases exist for the
compromise agreement on the estate same estate, consolidation is proper to avoid
distribution. conflicting rulings and duplication of effort.
4. Jurisdiction of Probate Court
o Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over
matters relating to the settlement of the estate,
including determining whether the decedent died
testate or intestate.
Uriarte vs. Court of First Instance of Negros Occ.
(G.R. No. L-21938-39, May 29, 1970)

Facts: Vicente Uriarte filed a petition for the intestate

settlement of the estate of Juan Uriarte y Goite in the
Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros Occidental,
claiming to be the sole heir. However, other heirs
opposed this, alleging that Don Juan had left a will in
Spain.

Subsequently, one of the heirs filed a separate petition

for the probate of the will in the CFI of Manila. He
attached a copy of the alleged will to his motion to
dismiss the intestate proceedings in Negros Occidental.
The Negros court dismissed the intestate case, while
the Manila court admitted the will to probate.

Vicente Uriarte then filed a petition for certiorari and

mandamus with the Supreme Court, arguing that the
Negros court was the first to take cognizance of the
case and therefore had exclusive jurisdiction over the
estate under the Rules of Court (Rule 73, Section 1).

Issue: Did the Manila court have jurisdiction to

proceed with the probate of the will, even if the Negros
Occidental court had been the first to take cognizance
of the intestate proceeding?

Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of

the Manila court and denied the petitions of Vicente
Uriarte. The Court reiterated the fundamental principle
that testate proceedings take precedence over
intestate proceedings.

Even though the Negros Occidental court was the first

to file a case, the moment a valid will is discovered, the
proceedings must shift to the probate of that will. The
Court also held that while the Negros court may have
been the proper venue, this is a waivable procedural
defect, and Vicente Uriarte's delay in challenging the
Manila proceedings constituted a waiver and laches.
The Court emphasized that it is against public policy to
multiply litigation and that the existence of a will
overrides the initial filing of an intestate petition.

FACTS:

 Nov. 6, 1961 – Vicente Uriarte filed Special Proceeding

No. 6344 (CFI Negros Occidental) for the intestate
settlement of the estate of Juan Uriarte y Goite, claiming to
be the decedent’s natural son (Civil Case No. 6142 for
compulsory acknowledgment pending).
 Nov. 13, 1961 – Philippine National Bank appointed as
special administrator (did not qualify).
 Dec. 19, 1961 – Higinio Uriarte opposed, claiming the
decedent left a will executed in Spain.
 Aug. 28, 1962 – Juan Uriarte Zamacona filed Special
Proceeding No. 51396 (CFI Manila) for probate of the will;
also moved to dismiss the Negros intestate case.
 Apr. 19, 1963 – Negros court dismissed its intestate case;
motion for reconsideration denied July 27, 1963.
 Vicente filed notice of appeal but the Negros court
disapproved his record on appeal, citing pendency of
certiorari in the Supreme Court.
 Meanwhile, Manila CFI admitted the will to probate (petition
uncontested) and appointed an administrator with will
annexed. Vicente moved to intervene and dismiss but was
denied.
 G.R. L-21938 – Petition for certiorari to annul dismissal of
  G.R. L-21938 – Petition for certiorari to annul dismissal of
Cuenco vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-24742,
Negros case and proceedings in Manila case. October 26, 1973)
 G.R. L-21939 – Supplemental petition for mandamus to
compel approval of his record on appeal in the Negros case.
Facts: Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died, leaving a
will. His daughter from his first marriage, Lourdes
ISSUES:
Cuenco, filed a petition for intestate proceedings in
the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, alleging that
1. Whether the Negros court erred in dismissing the
intestate proceeding in favor of the later-filed Manila
the senator was a resident of Cebu.
probate proceeding.
2. Whether the Manila court should have dismissed the
probate proceeding for improper venue, given the prior A week later, the senator's widow, Rosa Cayetano
Negros intestate case. Cuenco, filed a petition for the probate of his last
3. Whether petitioner can still challenge the Manila
probate case despite knowledge of the will and
will and testament in the CFI of Rizal (Quezon City),
proceedings. where she and the senator's two minor sons resided.
The Cebu court, upon learning of the will, issued an
RULING: order holding its intestate proceedings in abeyance to
give way to the probate case in Quezon City.
 Testate proceedings take precedence over intestate
proceedings involving the same estate. Lourdes Cuenco then challenged the jurisdiction of the
 If a will is discovered while intestate proceedings are Quezon City court, arguing that the Cebu court, having
pending, the probate of the will should replace intestate
administration (without prejudice to continuation as intestate received the first petition, had acquired exclusive
if will is disallowed). jurisdiction. The Quezon City court denied her motion
 Although venue for probate was improperly laid in Manila to dismiss. She then went to the Court of Appeals,
(will should have been filed with Negros CFI to avoid which issued a writ of prohibition against the Quezon
multiplicity of suits), venue is waivable and is merely a
procedural defect. City court.
 Petitioner waived his objection by laches:
o He knew of the will since Dec. 1961. Issue: Did the Court of Appeals err in issuing a writ of
o He was notified of the Manila probate case in Aug. prohibition against the Quezon City court, thereby
1962. giving precedence to the intestate proceedings in
o Yet, he waited until Apr. 1963 to object, after
Cebu?
probate was already granted.
 Supreme Court will not annul regularly conducted
proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction just to have Ruling: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of
them repeated in another court.
Appeals' decision. It ruled that the appellate court
 Petitioner may still pursue his civil case for acknowledgment
committed an error of law by issuing the writ of
or intervene in the Manila probate proceeding to prove his
status as an heir. prohibition.
 The mandamus petition became moot because the appeal
from the Negros dismissal order would serve no useful
purpose after the Court’s ruling. The Court held that the probate of a will is a
fundamental and mandatory requirement for the
DISPOSITION: orderly settlement of an estate. It reaffirmed the
doctrine that testate proceedings take precedence
over intestate proceedings. While Rule 73, Section
 Both petitions dismissed (certiorari in L-21938 and
1 states that the court first taking cognizance of the
mandamus in L-21939).
 Writ of preliminary injunction set aside. - court order that estate has exclusive jurisdiction, this rule is not meant
temporarily stops a person or organization from doing to override the express wishes of the decedent as
something until a final decision contained in a will.
 Costs against petitioner.

The Court noted that the Cebu court itself had deferred
HIGHLIGHTED DOCTRINES (Special Proceedings):
to the Quezon City court, recognizing the primacy of
the probate case. Therefore, the Quezon City court had
1. Priority of Testate over Intestate Proceedings
not acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
o If the decedent left a will, probate is mandatory
and takes precedence over intestate
discretion. The will's recital of residence in Quezon City
administration. was a key factor in determining proper venue, and the
o If will is later disallowed, proceedings continue as Court's ruling protected the decedent's testamentary
intestate.
2. Venue in Settlement of Estate (Rule 73, Sec. 1)
o For a non-resident decedent, the estate may be
settled in any province where he left property.
o Venue defects are procedural and waivable; they
do not affect jurisdiction over the subject matter.
3. Waiver and Laches in Venue Objections - you can lose
your right to make a legal claim if you wait too long to do it
o Failure to timely object to improper venue,
especially with knowledge of the proceeding,
amounts to waiver.
4. Probate Court Jurisdiction
o Probate court has authority to determine who are
the heirs and to rule on questions such as the
acknowledgment of a natural child (e.g., Conde v.
Abaya, Severino v. Severino).
5. Judicial Economy
o Public policy discourages multiplicity of suits; wills
known to exist should be filed in the court first
wishes.
Facts

 Feb. 25, 1964 – Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in

Manila, survived by petitioner-widow Rosa Cayetano Cuenco
(with two minor sons) and children from his first marriage
(respondents).
 Mar. 5, 1964 – Respondent Lourdes Cuenco filed an
intestate petition in the CFI Cebu, alleging the decedent was
a Cebu resident and left properties in Cebu & Quezon City.
Hearing set after publication.
 Mar. 12, 1964 – Petitioner filed in the CFI Rizal (Quezon
City) a petition for probate of the senator’s last will, naming
herself executrix.
 Cebu court issued an Apr. 10, 1964 order deferring action
on the intestate petition until after the QC court acted on the
probate petition.

 QC court denied the motion, found Quezon City was

decedent’s residence, and proceeded to probate the will after
oppositors failed to appear at the hearing.
 QC court appointed petitioner as executrix without bond per the
will.
 Instead of appealing, respondents filed certiorari and prohibition
in the CA to stop QC proceedings.
 Nov. 21, 1964 – CA ruled for respondents, holding Cebu court
had exclusive jurisdiction as the first to be filed with.

Issues

1. Whether the CFI Quezon City acted without jurisdiction in

proceeding with probate despite the earlier intestate petition in
Cebu.
2. Whether the CA erred in issuing a writ of prohibition
against the Quezon City court.

Ruling

 SC REVERSED the CA – The Quezon City court validly took

cognizance of the probate proceedings.

Doctrines (Special Proceedings)

1. Rule 73, Sec. 1 – Venue, not jurisdiction.

o The rule fixes venue to avoid conflicting proceedings,
but residence is not an element of jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
o Jurisdiction over probate matters is conferred by law
on CFIs (now RTCs) regardless of the decedent’s
residence; venue defects are waivable.
2. Precedence of probate over intestate proceedings.
o If a will is presented, probate proceedings take
precedence over intestacy, even if an intestate case
was filed earlier.
3. “First taking cognizance” requirement.
o For exclusive jurisdiction to attach under Rule 73, the
court first filed with must also take cognizance of
the case.
o Cebu court deferred to QC court, so it did not “first
take cognizance.”
4. Comity between courts of coordinate jurisdiction.
o A court may defer to another of equal jurisdiction
when venue is proper there and issues (e.g.,
existence of will, residence) are more appropriately
resolved there.
5. Finality of probate orders.
o An order admitting a will to probate, if not appealed,
becomes final and cannot be collaterally attacked via
prohibition.
6. Laches in questioning venue/jurisdiction.
o Failure to timely object to venue/jurisdiction after
active participation bars later challenge.

Disposition

 Petition granted; CA decision and resolution reversed.

 CA’s prohibition petition dismissed.
 QC court’s probate of the will and appointment of petitioner as
executrix affirmed.