Uriarte vs. CFI L-21938-39 May 1970Facts:Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain and he left reasonable properties in the Philippines. Vicente Uriarte, who is claiming to be the son and sole heir of the deceased, filed a petition for the intestate settlement of the estate of the deceased in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. However, said petition was opposed by the nephews of Juan stating that there is a valid will left by the deceased in Spain, a copy of which is being requested. Then, the nephews filed a settlement of the estate in the court of Manila, on the basis of the alleged will of the deceased. Vicente filed an opposition to the settlement of estate in the court of Manila stating that the court of Negros Occidental has already acquired original jurisdiction over the case. The opposition of Vicente was dismissed together with the intestate settlement In the CFI of Negros. Hence, Vicente filed a petition for certiorari questioning the dismissal of the intestate settlement in the CFI of Negros.

Issue: Whether or not the intestate settlement should be dismissed.

Held:Yes. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the intestate proceeding is proper. Under the Rules on the settlement of estate of the deceased person, testate proceedings enjoy priority over intestate proceedings. Therefore, in case intestate settlement was filed prior to the finding of the will of the deceased, then the intestate proceedings shall be dismissed to give priority to the testate proceeding.

Cuenco vs. CA L-24742FACTS:Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila. He was survived by his widow and two minor sons, residing in Quezon City, and children of the first marriage, residing in Cebu. Lourdes, one of the children from the first marriage, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration with the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cebu, alleging that the senator died intestate in Manila but a resident of Cebu with properties in Cebu and Quezon City.The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Cayetano Cuenco, the second wife, filed a petition with CFI Rizal for the probate of the last will and testament, where she was named executrix. Rosa also filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but this court held in abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI Quezon shall have acted on the probate proceedings. Lourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI Quezon, on ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue, considering that CFI Cebu already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The opposition and motion to dismiss were denied. Upon appeal CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a writ of prohibition to CFI Quezon.

ISSUE: Whether or not CFI Quezon acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance and assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the probate proceedings in pursuance to CFI Cebu's order expressly consenting in deference to the precedence of probate over intestate proceedings

HELD:No. Under Rule 73, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The residence of the decent or the location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter but merely of venue. If this were otherwise, it would affect the prompt administration of justice. The court with whom the petition is first filed must also first take cognizance of the settlement of the estate in order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other courts.

Bernardo vs. CA L-18148 February 1963FACTS: Eusebio Capili and Hermogena Reyes were husband and wife. Eusebio died and his properties were disposed in his will to his wife Hermogena and his 6 cousins which included Deogracias Bernardo, the executor. The wife died and she was substituted by her collateral relatives, upon executor Bernardo's petition. Petitioner-executor filed his project of partition, but was opposed by collateral relatives

claiming that ½ of the properties disposed of in the will are part of the spouses’ conjugal partnership. Probate court heard evidence. Petitioner contended that it was donated by the wife to the husband so it was not part of CPG and that the oppositors cannot question the validity of the donation in the probate proceedings. Oppositors rebutted that since it was donated during marriage, it was void; hence, the husband did not own it and cannot dispose it by will. Probate court ordered the donation voided and that executor submit another project of partition. Petitioner filed Motion for New trial (MNT) on the ground that probate court had no jurisdiction, but was denied. Petitioner filed for appeal to CA, but was also denied. Hence, this petition for review by certiorari before the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not a probate court can determine a question of ownership over property during distribution.

HELD: YES. Probate court has to liquidate the conjugal partnership to determine the testator's estate to be distributed to the heirs who are parties to the proceedings. As a general rule, question as to title to property cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate proceedings," except: a. where one of the parties prays merely for the inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the property, in which case the probate court may pass provisionally upon the question without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action. b. when the parties interested are all heirs of the deceased, it is optional to them to submit to the probate court a question as to title to property, and when so submitted, said probate court may definitely pass judgment thereon c. all parties give consent so that matters affecting property under judicial administration may be taken cognizance of by the court in the course of intestate proceeding, provided interests of third persons are not prejudiced