SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

189121 July 31, 2013

AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON a ! MARIA JENNI"ER QUIAZON, Petitioners, vs. MA. LOUR#E$ %ELEN, &o' a ! ( )*+al& o& MARIA LOUR#E$ ELI$E QUIAZON, Respondent. DECISION ,EREZ, J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, pri!aril" assailin# the $% Nove!&er $''% De(ision rendered &" the Ninth Division of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. CV No. %% %,,- the de(retal portion of whi(h states. /0ERE1ORE, pre!ises (onsidered, the appeal is here&" DENIED. The assailed De(ision dated 2ar(h --, $'' , and the Order dated 2ar(h $4, $''3 of the Re#ional Trial Court, 4ran(h $5 , 6as Pi7as Cit" are )11IR2ED in toto.$ The 1a(ts This (ase started as a Petition for 6etters of )d!inistration of the Estate of Eliseo 8uia9on :Eliseo;, filed &" herein respondents who are Eliseo<s (o!!on*law wife and dau#hter. The petition was opposed &" herein petitioners )!elia +ar(ia*8uai9on :)!elia; to who! Eliseo was !arried. )!elia was =oined &" her (hildren, >enneth 8uia9on :>enneth; and 2aria >ennifer 8uia9on :>ennifer;. Eliseo died intestate on -$ De(e!&er -,,$. On -$ Septe!&er -,,4, 2aria 6ourdes Elise 8uia9on :Elise;, represented &" her !other, 2a. 6ourdes 4elen :6ourdes;, filed a Petition for 6etters of )d!inistration &efore the Re#ional Trial Court :RTC; of 6as Pi7as Cit".? In her Petition do(@eted as SP Pro(. No. 2*?, 5, Elise (lai!s that she is the natural (hild of Eliseo havin# &een (on(eived and &orn at the ti!e when her parents were &oth (apa(itated to !arr" ea(h other. Insistin# on the le#al (apa(it" of Eliseo and 6ourdes to !arr", Elise i!pu#ned the validit" of Eliseo<s !arria#e to )!elia &" (lai!in# that it was &i#a!ous for havin# &een (ontra(ted durin# the su&sisten(e of the latter<s !arria#e with one 1ilipito Sandi(o :1ilipito;. To prove her filiation to the de(edent, Elise, a!on# others, atta(hed to the Petition for 6etters of )d!inistration her Certifi(ate of 6ive 4irth4 si#ned &" Eliseo as her father. In the sa!e petition, it was alle#ed that Eliseo left real properties worth P$,'4','''.'' and personal properties worth P$,-'','''.''. In order to preserve the estate of Eliseo and to prevent the dissipation of its value, Elise sou#ht her appoint!ent as ad!inistratriA of her late father<s estate. Clai!in# that the venue of the petition was i!properl" laid, )!elia, to#ether with her (hildren, >enneth and >ennifer, opposed the issuan(e of the letters of ad!inistration &" filin# an OppositionB2otion to Dis!iss. The petitioners asserted that as shown &" his Death Certifi(ate, 3 Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarla( and not of 6as Pi7as Cit", at the ti!e of his death. Pursuant to Se(tion -, Rule 5? of the Revised Rules of Court,5 the petition for settle!ent of de(edent<s estate should have &een filed in Capas, Tarla( and not in 6as Pi7as Cit". In addition to their (lai! of i!proper venue, the petitioners averred that there are no fa(tual and le#al &ases for Elise to &e appointed ad!inistratiA of Eliseo<s estate. In a De(ision% dated -- 2ar(h $'' , the RTC dire(ted the issuan(e of 6etters of )d!inistration to Elise upon postin# the ne(essar" &ond. The lower (ourt ruled that the venue of the petition was properl" laid in

6as Pi7as Cit", there&" dis(reditin# the position ta@en &" the petitioners that Eliseo<s last residen(e was in Capas, Tarla(, as hearsa". The dispositive of the RTC de(ision reads. 0avin# attained le#al a#e at this ti!e and there &ein# no showin# of an" disCualifi(ation or in(o!peten(e to serve as ad!inistrator, let letters of ad!inistration over the estate of the de(edent Eliseo 8uia9on, therefore, &e issued to petitioner, 2a. 6ourdes Elise 8uia9on, after the approval &" this Court of a &ond in the a!ount of P-'','''.'' to &e posted &" her., On appeal, the de(ision of the trial (ourt was affir!ed in toto in the $% Nove!&er $''% De(ision-' rendered &" the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R.CV No. %% %,. In validatin# the findin#s of the RTC, the Court of )ppeals held that Elise was a&le to prove that Eliseo and 6ourdes lived to#ether as hus&and and wife &" esta&lishin# a (o!!on residen(e at No. $3 Everlastin# Road, Phase , Pilar Villa#e, 6as Pi7as Cit", fro! -,5 up to the ti!e of Eliseo<s death in -,,$. 1or purposes of fiAin# the venue of the settle!ent of Eliseo<s estate, the Court of )ppeals upheld the (on(lusion rea(hed &" the RTC that the de(edent was a resident of 6as Pi7as Cit". The petitioners< 2otion for Re(onsideration was denied &" the Court of )ppeals in its Resolution-- dated 5 )u#ust $'',. The Issues The petitioners now ur#e Ds to reverse the assailed Court of )ppeals De(ision and Resolution on the followin# #rounds.

I. T0E CODRT O1 )PPE)6S +R)VE6E ERRED IN )11IR2IN+ T0)T E6ISEO 8DI)FON /)S ) RESIDENT O1 6)S PIG)S )ND T0ERE1ORE, T0E PETITION 1OR 6ETTERS O1 )D2INISTR)TION /)S PROPER6E 1I6ED /IT0 T0E RTC O1 6)S PIG)SH II. T0E CODRT O1 )PPE)6S +R)VE6E ERRED IN DEC6)RIN+ T0)T )2E6I) +)RCI)* 8DI)FON /)S NOT 6E+)66E 2)RRIED TO E6ISEO 8DI)FON DDE TO PREEIISTIN+ 2)RRI)+EH )ND III. T0E CODRT O1 )PPE)6S OVER6OOJED T0E 1)CT T0)T E6ISE 8DI)FON 0)S NOT S0O/N )NE INTEREST IN T0E PETITION 1OR 6ETTERS O1 )D2INISTR)TION. -$
The Court<s Rulin# /e find the petition &ereft of !erit. Dnder Se(tion -, Rule 5? of the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of ad!inistration of the estate of a de(edent should &e filed in the RTC of the provin(e where the de(edent resides at the ti!e of his death. Se(. -. /here estate of de(eased persons settled. K If the de(edent is an inha&itant of the Philippines at the ti!e of his death, whether a (iti9en or an alien, his will shall &e proved, or letters of ad!inistration #ranted, and his estate settled, in the Court of 1irst Instan(e now Re#ional Trial Court in the provin(e in whi(h he resides at the ti!e of his death, and if he is an inha&itant of a forei#n (ountr", the Court of 1irst Instan(e now Re#ional Trial Court of an" provin(e in whi(h he had estate. The (ourt first ta@in# (o#ni9an(e of the settle!ent of the estate of a de(edent, shall eAer(ise =urisdi(tion to the eA(lusion of all other (ourts. The =urisdi(tion assu!ed &" a (ourt, so far as it depends on the pla(e of residen(e of the de(edent, or of the lo(ation of his estate, shall not &e (ontested in a suit or pro(eedin#, eA(ept in an appeal fro! that (ourt, in the ori#inal (ase, or when the want of =urisdi(tion appears on the re(ord. :E!phasis supplied;. The ter! LresidesL (onnotes eA vi ter!ini La(tual residen(eL as distin#uished fro! Lle#al residen(e or do!i(ile.L This ter! Lresides,L li@e the ter!s Lresidin#L and Lresiden(e,L is elasti( and should &e

interpreted in the li#ht of the o&=e(t or purpose of the statute or rule in whi(h it is e!plo"ed. In the appli(ation of venue statutes and rules K Se(tion -, Rule 5? of the Revised Rules of Court is of su(h nature K residen(e rather than do!i(ile is the si#nifi(ant fa(tor. -? Even where the statute uses word Ldo!i(ileL still it is (onstrued as !eanin# residen(e and not do!i(ile in the te(hni(al sense. -4 So!e (ases !a@e a distin(tion &etween the ter!s Lresiden(eL and Ldo!i(ileL &ut as #enerall" used in statutes fiAin# venue, the ter!s are s"non"!ous, and (onve" the sa!e !eanin# as the ter! Linha&itant.L - In other words, LresidesL should &e viewed or understood in its popular sense, !eanin#, the personal, a(tual or ph"si(al ha&itation of a person, a(tual residen(e or pla(e of a&ode. -3 It si#nifies ph"si(al presen(e in a pla(e and a(tual sta" thereat.-5 Venue for ordinar" (ivil a(tions and that for spe(ial pro(eedin#s have one and the sa!e !eanin#.-% )s thus defined, Lresiden(e,L in the (onteAt of venue provisions, !eans nothin# !ore than a person<s a(tual residen(e or pla(e of a&ode, provided he resides therein with (ontinuit" and (onsisten(".-, Viewed in li#ht of the fore#oin# prin(iples, the Court of )ppeals (annot &e faulted for affir!in# the rulin# of the RTC that the venue for the settle!ent of the estate of Eliseo was properl" laid in 6as Pi7as Cit". It is evident fro! the re(ords that durin# his lifeti!e, Eliseo resided at No. $3 Everlastin# Road, Phase , Pilar Villa#e, 6as Pi7as Cit". 1or this reason, the venue for the settle!ent of his estate !a" &e laid in the said (it". In opposin# the issuan(e of letters of ad!inistration, the petitioners harp on the entr" in Eliseo<s Death Certifi(ate that he is a resident of Capas, Tarla( where the" insist his estate should &e settled. /hile the re(itals in death (ertifi(ates (an &e (onsidered proofs of a de(edent<s residen(e at the ti!e of his death, the (ontents thereof, however, is not &indin# on the (ourts. 4oth the RTC and the Court of )ppeals found that Eliseo had &een livin# with 6ourdes, deportin# the!selves as hus&and and wife, fro! -,5$ up to the ti!e of his death in -,, . This findin# is (onsistent with the fa(t that in -,% , Eliseo filed an a(tion for =udi(ial partition of properties a#ainst )!elia &efore the RTC of 8ue9on Cit", 4ran(h -'3, on the #round that their !arria#e is void for &ein# &i#a!ous.$' That Eliseo went to the eAtent of ta@in# his !arital feud with )!elia &efore the (ourts of law renders untena&le petitioners< position that Eliseo spent the final da"s of his life in Tarla( with )!elia and her (hildren. It disproves rather than supports petitioners< su&!ission that the lower (ourts< findin#s arose fro! an erroneous appre(iation of the eviden(e on re(ord. 1a(tual findin#s of the trial (ourt, when affir!ed &" the appellate (ourt, !ust &e held to &e (on(lusive and &indin# upon this Court.$6i@ewise un!eritorious is petitioners< (ontention that the Court of )ppeals erred in de(larin# )!elia<s !arria#e to Eliseo as void a& initio. In a void !arria#e, it was thou#h no !arria#e has ta@en pla(e, thus, it (annot &e the sour(e of ri#hts. )n" interested part" !a" atta(@ the !arria#e dire(tl" or (ollaterall". ) void !arria#e (an &e Cuestioned even &e"ond the lifeti!e of the parties to the !arria#e. $$ It !ust &e pointed out that at the ti!e of the (ele&ration of the !arria#e of Eliseo and )!elia, the law in effe(t was the Civil Code, and not the 1a!il" Code, !a@in# the rulin# in Ni7al v. 4a"ado# $? appli(a&le four*sCuare to the (ase at hand. In Ni7al, the Court, in no un(ertain ter!s, allowed therein petitioners to file a petition for the de(laration of nullit" of their father<s !arria#e to therein respondent after the death of their father, &" (ontradistin#uishin# void fro! voida&le !arria#es, to wit. ConseCuentl", void !arria#es (an &e Cuestioned even after the death of either part" &ut voida&le !arria#es (an &e assailed onl" durin# the lifeti!e of the parties and not after death of either, in whi(h (ase the parties and their offsprin# will &e left as if the !arria#e had &een perfe(tl" valid. That is wh" the a(tion or defense for nullit" is i!pres(ripti&le, unli@e voida&le !arria#es where the a(tion pres(ri&es. Onl" the parties to a voida&le !arria#e (an assail it &ut an" proper interested part" !a" atta(@ a void !arria#e.$4 It was e!phasi9ed in Ni7al that in a void !arria#e, no !arria#e has ta@en pla(e and it (annot &e the sour(e of ri#hts, su(h that an" interested part" !a" atta(@ the !arria#e dire(tl" or (ollaterall" without pres(ription, whi(h !a" &e filed even &e"ond the lifeti!e of the parties to the !arria#e. $

Relevant to the fore#oin#, there is no dou&t that Elise, whose su((essional ri#hts would &e pre=udi(ed &" her father<s !arria#e to )!elia, !a" i!pu#n the eAisten(e of su(h !arria#e even after the death of her father. The said !arria#e !a" &e Cuestioned dire(tl" &" filin# an a(tion atta(@in# the validit" thereof, or (ollaterall" &" raisin# it as an issue in a pro(eedin# for the settle!ent of the estate of the de(eased spouse, su(h as in the (ase at &ar. Inelu(ta&l", Elise, as a (o!pulsor" heir, $3 has a (ause of a(tion for the de(laration of the a&solute nullit" of the void !arria#e of Eliseo and )!elia, and the death of either part" to the said !arria#e does not eAtin#uish su(h (ause of a(tion. 0avin# esta&lished the ri#ht of Elise to i!pu#n Eliseo<s !arria#e to )!elia, we now pro(eed to deter!ine whether or not the de(edent<s !arria#e to )!elia is void for &ein# &i#a!ous. Contrar" to the position ta@en &" the petitioners, the eAisten(e of a previous !arria#e &etween )!elia and 1ilipito was suffi(ientl" esta&lished &" no less than the Certifi(ate of 2arria#e issued &" the Dio(ese of Tarla( and si#ned &" the offi(iatin# priest of the Parish of San Ni(olas de Tolentino in Capas, Tarla(. The said !arria#e (ertifi(ate is a (o!petent eviden(e of !arria#e and the (ertifi(ation fro! the National )r(hive that no infor!ation relative to the said !arria#e eAists does not di!inish the pro&ative value of the entries therein. /e ta@e =udi(ial noti(e of the fa(t that the first !arria#e was (ele&rated !ore than ' "ears a#o, thus, the possi&ilit" that a re(ord of !arria#e (an no lon#er &e found in the National )r(hive, #iven the interval of ti!e, is not (o!pletel" re!ote. ConseCuentl", in the a&sen(e of an" showin# that su(h !arria#e had &een dissolved at the ti!e )!elia and Eliseo<s !arria#e was sole!ni9ed, the ines(apa&le (on(lusion is that the latter !arria#e is &i#a!ous and, therefore, void a& initio. $5 Neither are we in(lined to lend (reden(e to the petitioners< (ontention that Elise has not shown an" interest in the Petition for 6etters of )d!inistration. Se(tion 3, Rule 5% of the Revised Rules of Court la"s down the preferred persons who are entitled to the issuan(e of letters of ad!inistration, thus. Se(. 3. /hen and to who! letters of ad!inistration #ranted. M If no eAe(utor is na!ed in the will, or the eAe(utor or eAe(utors are in(o!petent, refuse the trust, or fail to #ive &ond, or a person dies intestate, ad!inistration shall &e #ranted.

:a; To the survivin# hus&and or wife, as the (ase !a" &e, or neAt of @in, or &oth, in the dis(retion of the (ourt, or to su(h person as su(h survivin# hus&and or wife, or neAt of @in, reCuests to have appointed, if (o!petent and willin# to serveH :&; If su(h survivin# hus&and or wife, as the (ase !a" &e, or neAt of @in, or the person sele(ted &" the!, &e in(o!petent or unwillin#, or if the hus&and or widow, or neAt of @in, ne#le(ts for thirt" :?'; da"s after the death of the person to appl" for ad!inistration or to reCuest that ad!inistration &e #ranted to so!e other person, it !a" &e #ranted to one or !ore of the prin(ipal (reditors, if (o!petent and willin# to serveH :(; If there is no su(h (reditor (o!petent and willin# to serve, it !a" &e #ranted to su(h other person as the (ourt !a" sele(t.
Dpon the other hand, Se(tion $ of Rule 5, provides that a petition for 6etters of )d!inistration !ust &e filed &" an interested person, thus. Se(. $. Contents of petition for letters of ad!inistration. M ) petition for letters of ad!inistration !ust &e filed &" an interested person and !ust show, so far as @nown to the petitioner.

:a; The =urisdi(tional fa(tsH

:&; The na!es, a#es, and residen(es of the heirs, and the na!es and residen(es of the (reditors, of the de(edentH :(; The pro&a&le value and (hara(ter of the propert" of the estateH :d; The na!e of the person for who! letters of ad!inistration are pra"ed.
4ut no defe(t in the petition shall render void the issuan(e of letters of ad!inistration. )n Linterested part",L in estate pro(eedin#s, is one who would &e &enefited in the estate, su(h as an heir, or one who has a (lai! a#ainst the estate, su(h as a (reditor. )lso, in estate pro(eedin#s, the phrase LneAt of @inL refers to those whose relationship with the de(edent Is su(h that the" are entitled to share in the estate as distri&utees.$% In the instant (ase, Elise, as a (o!pulsor" heir who stands to &e &enefited &" the distri&ution of Eliseo<s estate, is dee!ed to &e an interested part". /ith the overwhel!in# eviden(e on re(ord produ(ed &" Elise to prove her filiation to Eliseo, the petitioners< poundin# on her la(@ of interest in the ad!inistration of the de(edent<s estate, is =ust a desperate atte!pt to swa" this Court to reverse the findin#s of the Court of )ppeals. Certainl", the ri#ht of Elise to &e appointed ad!inistratiA of the estate of Eliseo is on #ood #rounds. It is founded on her ri#ht as a (o!pulsor" heir, who, under the law, is entitled to her le#iti!ate after the de&ts of the estate are satisfied.$, 0avin# a vested ri#ht in the distri&ution of Eliseo<s estate as one of his natural (hildren, Elise (an ri#htfull" &e (onsidered as an interested part" within the purview of the law. /0ERE1ORE, pre!ises (onsidered, the petition is DENIED for la(@ of !erit. )((ordin#l", the Court of )ppeals assailed $% Nove!&er $''% De(ision and 5 )u#ust $'', Resolution, ar( )11IR2ED in toto. SO ORDERED. JO$E ,ORTUGAL ,EREZ )sso(iate >usti(e /E CONCDR. ANTONIO T. CAR,IO )sso(iate >usti( Chairpersone

ARTURO #. %RION )sso(iate >usti(e

MARIANO C. #EL CA$TILLO )sso(iate >usti(e

E$TELA M. ,ERLA$-%ERNA%E )sso(iate >usti(e )TTEST)TION I attest that the (on(lusions in the a&ove De(ision were rea(hed in (onsultation &e lore the (ase was assi#ned to the writer or the opinion or the Court<s Division. ATONIO T. CAR,IO )sso(iate >usti(e Chairperson, Se(ond Division

CERTI1IC)TION Pursuant to Se(tion -?, )rti(le VIII of the Constitution and the Division ChairpersonNs )ttestation, it is here&" (ertified that the (on(lusions in the a&ove De(ision were rea(hed in (onsultation &efore the (ase was assi#ned to the writer or the opinion of the CourtNs Division. MARIA LOUR#E$ ,. A. $ERENO Chief >usti(e