Vda. De Manzanero vs. CFI

Remedios Bongon Vda. De Manzanero vs. The CFI of Batangas

August 27, 1935 | Villa-Real

Facts:

Esteban Manzanero, then assistant district engineer of Albay, died in the provincial hospital on February 15, 1935. Fortunato Manzanero, his brother, filed in the CFI of Batangas a sworn  application which was docketed as Spec. Pro. No. 3128 alleging that Esteban had his legal residence in Santo Tomas, Batangas; that he had left no property except a life insurance policy of P5,000; that Esteban owed him the sum of P500; that he was survived by a widow, the herein petitioner, Remedios Bongon, residing in Tabaco, Albay.

The CFI issued an order setting said application for hearing at 8:30 A.M. of April 11, 1935, and directing the publication of the notice for the time fixed by law in Kayumanggi. When the application was called for hearing, only Fortunato Manzanero appeared.  Upon petition of the applicant and after making sure that no opposition to the application had been presented, the judge ordered the clerk of court to take evidence in the case. The case was set for hearing in the morning of 22 April 1935 and the corresponding notice thereof sent by registered special delivery to Vda. de Manzanero and Fortunato Manzanero.

The case was called for hearing without the petitioner having appeared to oppose the application. The judge issue an order stating that the deceased was a resident of Santo Tomas, Batangas and directed the summary distribution of the estate to the heirs of the deceased. He also ordered the insurance company to pay to the heirs of the deceased the proceeds of the insurance policy.

After being informed that the proceeds of the policy had been distributed among the heirs of her deceased husband, Vda de. Manzanero filed a motion praying for the return and delivery to her of the money but the presiding judge refrained from trying the case.

Issue: Whether or not the question of jurisdiction of a court to take cognizance of a summary settlement of the estate of a deceased person, by reason of residence, may be raised by means of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari?

Held: According to Sec. 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Rule 73, Sec. 1 of the RoC), the jurisdiction assumed by a CFI for the settlement of an estate, so far as it depends on the place of residence of a person, or of the location of his estate, cannot be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from the court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.

In this case, the want of jurisdiction of said court does not clearly appear on the record. The communication of the municipal treasurer of Tabaco, Albay stating that the deceased resided in Tabaco, Albay before his death does not form part of the record of the lower court.

It not appearing from the orders of the lower court that said court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application for summary settlement by reason of the legal residence of the deceased, certiorari does not lie, an appeal being specifically provided in suce case by Sec. 603.

Doctrine: Certiorari does not lie to question the jurisdiction of the court that assumed the settlement of the estate if the want of jurisdiction does not clearly appear on the record.