March 24, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court,

SECOND DIVISION Branch 275, Las Piñas City are AFFIRMED in

toto.2
G.R. No. 189121 July 31, 2013
The Facts
AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH
QUIAZON and MARIA JENNIFER This case started as a Petition for Letters of
QUIAZON, Petitioners, Administration of the Estate of Eliseo Quiazon
vs. (Eliseo), filed by herein respondents who are
MA. LOURDES BELEN, for and in behalf Eliseo’s common-law wife and daughter. The
of MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON, petition was opposed by herein petitioners
Respondent. Amelia Garcia-Quaizon (Amelia) to whom Eliseo
was married. Amelia was joined by her children,
DECISION Jenneth Quiazon (Jenneth) and Maria Jennifer
Quiazon (Jennifer).
PEREZ, J.:
Eliseo died intestate on 12 December 1992.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules On 12 September 1994, Maria Lourdes Elise
of Court, primarily assailing the 28 November Quiazon (Elise), represented by her mother, Ma.
2008 Decision rendered by the Ninth Division of Lourdes Belen (Lourdes), filed a Petition for
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88589,1 Letters of Administration before the Regional
the decretal portion of which states: Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City.3 In her
Petition docketed as SP Proc. No. M-3957, Elise
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo
appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision having been conceived and born at the time
dated March 11, 2005, and the Order dated when her parents were both capacitated to
marry each other. Insisting on the legal capacity Revised Rules of Court,7 the petition for
of Eliseo and Lourdes to marry, Elise impugned settlement of decedent’s estate should have
the validity of Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia by been filed in Capas, Tarlac and not in Las Piñas
claiming that it was bigamous for having been City. In addition to their claim of improper
contracted during the subsistence of the latter’s venue, the petitioners averred that there are no
marriage with one Filipito Sandico (Filipito). To factual and legal bases for Elise to be appointed
prove her filiation to the decedent, Elise, among administratix of Eliseo’s estate.
others, attached to the Petition for Letters of
Administration her Certificate of Live Birth4 In a Decision8 dated 11 March 2005, the
signed by Eliseo as her father. In the same RTC directed the issuance of Letters of
petition, it was alleged that Eliseo left real Administration to Elise upon posting the
properties worth ₱2,040,000.00 and personal necessary bond. The lower court ruled that the
properties worth ₱2,100,000.00. In order to venue of the petition was properly laid in Las
preserve the estate of Eliseo and to prevent the Piñas City, thereby discrediting the position
dissipation of its value, Elise sought her taken by the petitioners that Eliseo’s last
appointment as administratrix of her late residence was in Capas, Tarlac, as hearsay. The
father’s estate. dispositive of the RTC decision reads:

Claiming that the venue of the petition was Having attained legal age at this time and
improperly laid, Amelia, together with her there being no showing of any disqualification
children, Jenneth and Jennifer, opposed the or incompetence to serve as administrator, let
issuance of the letters of administration by filing letters of administration over the estate of the
an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss.5 The decedent Eliseo Quiazon, therefore, be issued
petitioners asserted that as shown by his Death to petitioner, Ma. Lourdes Elise Quiazon, after
Certificate, 6 Eliseo was a resident of Capas, the approval by this Court of a bond in the
Tarlac and not of Las Piñas City, at the time of amount of ₱100,000.00 to be posted by her.9
his death. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 73 of the
 On appeal, the decision of the trial court was THE PETITION FOR LETTERS OF
affirmed in toto in the 28 November 2008 ADMINISTRATION WAS PROPERLY FILED WITH
Decision10 rendered by the Court of Appeals in THE RTC OF LAS PIÑAS;
CA-G.R.CV No. 88589. In validating the findings
of the RTC, the Court of Appeals held that Elise II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
was able to prove that Eliseo and Lourdes lived ERRED IN DECLARING THAT AMELIA GARCIA-
together as husband and wife by establishing a QUIAZON WAS NOT LEGALLY MARRIED TO
common residence at No. 26 Everlasting Road, ELISEO QUIAZON DUE TO PREEXISTING
Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City, from 1975 MARRIAGE; AND
up to the time of Eliseo’s death in 1992. For
purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement III. THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED
of Eliseo’s estate, the Court of Appeals upheld THE FACT THAT ELISE QUIAZON HAS NOT
the conclusion reached by the RTC that the SHOWN ANY INTEREST IN THE PETITION FOR
decedent was a resident of Las Piñas City. The LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION.12
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was
denied by the Court of Appeals in its The Court’s Ruling
Resolution11 dated 7 August 2009.
We find the petition bereft of merit.
The Issues
Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of
The petitioners now urge Us to reverse the Court, the petition for letters of administration
assailed Court of Appeals Decision and of the estate of a decedent should be filed in
Resolution on the following grounds: the RTC of the province where the decedent
resides at the time of his death:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED
IN AFFIRMING THAT ELISEO QUIAZON WAS A Sec. 1. Where estate of deceased persons
RESIDENT OF LAS PIÑAS AND THEREFORE, settled. – If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the
citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or Revised Rules of Court is of such nature –
letters of administration granted, and his estate residence rather than domicile is the significant
settled, in the Court of First Instance now factor.13 Even where the statute uses word
Regional Trial Court in the province in which he "domicile" still it is construed as meaning
resides at the time of his death, and if he is an residence and not domicile in the technical
inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of sense.14 Some cases make a distinction
First Instance now Regional Trial Court of any between the terms "residence" and "domicile"
province in which he had estate. The court first but as generally used in statutes fixing venue,
taking cognizance of the settlement of the the terms are synonymous, and convey the
estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction same meaning as the term "inhabitant."15 In
to the exclusion of all other courts. The other words, "resides" should be viewed or
jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
depends on the place of residence of the personal, actual or physical habitation of a
decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall person, actual residence or place of abode.16 It
not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except signifies physical presence in a place and actual
in an appeal from that court, in the original stay thereat.17 Venue for ordinary civil actions
case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears and that for special proceedings have one and
on the record. (Emphasis supplied). the same meaning.18 As thus defined,
"residence," in the context of venue provisions,
The term "resides" connotes ex vi termini means nothing more than a person’s actual
"actual residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or place of abode, provided he
residence or domicile." This term "resides," like resides therein with continuity and
the terms "residing" and "residence," is elastic consistency.19
and should be interpreted in the light of the
object or purpose of the statute or rule in which Viewed in light of the foregoing principles,
it is employed. In the application of venue the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for
affirming the ruling of the RTC that the venue taking his marital feud with Amelia before the
for the settlement of the estate of Eliseo was courts of law renders untenable petitioners’
properly laid in Las Piñas City. It is evident from position that Eliseo spent the final days of his
the records that during his lifetime, Eliseo life in Tarlac with Amelia and her children. It
resided at No. 26 Everlasting Road, Phase 5, disproves rather than supports petitioners’
Pilar Village, Las Piñas City. For this reason, the submission that the lower courts’ findings arose
venue for the settlement of his estate may be from an erroneous appreciation of the evidence
laid in the said city. on record. Factual findings of the trial court,
when affirmed by the appellate court, must be
In opposing the issuance of letters of held to be conclusive and binding upon this
administration, the petitioners harp on the entry Court.21
in Eliseo’s Death Certificate that he is a resident
of Capas, Tarlac where they insist his estate Likewise unmeritorious is petitioners’
should be settled. While the recitals in death contention that the Court of Appeals erred in
certificates can be considered proofs of a declaring Amelia’s marriage to Eliseo as void ab
decedent’s residence at the time of his death, initio. In a void marriage, it was though no
the contents thereof, however, is not binding on marriage has taken place, thus, it cannot be the
the courts. Both the RTC and the Court of source of rights. Any interested party may
Appeals found that Eliseo had been living with attack the marriage directly or collaterally. A
Lourdes, deporting themselves as husband and void marriage can be questioned even beyond
wife, from 1972 up to the time of his death in the lifetime of the parties to the marriage.22 It
1995. This finding is consistent with the fact must be pointed out that at the time of the
that in 1985, Eliseo filed an action for judicial celebration of the marriage of Eliseo and
partition of properties against Amelia before the Amelia, the law in effect was the Civil Code, and
RTC of Quezon City, Branch 106, on the ground not the Family Code, making the ruling in Niñal
that their marriage is void for being v. Bayadog23 applicable four-square to the case
bigamous.20 That Eliseo went to the extent of at hand. In Niñal, the Court, in no uncertain
terms, allowed therein petitioners to file a
petition for the declaration of nullity of their Relevant to the foregoing, there is no doubt
father’s marriage to therein respondent after that Elise, whose successional rights would be
the death of their father, by prejudiced by her father’s marriage to Amelia,
contradistinguishing void from voidable may impugn the existence of such marriage
marriages, to wit: even after the death of her father. The said
marriage may be questioned directly by filing an
Consequently, void marriages can be action attacking the validity thereof, or
questioned even after the death of either party collaterally by raising it as an issue in a
but voidable marriages can be assailed only proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
during the lifetime of the parties and not after the deceased spouse, such as in the case at
death of either, in which case the parties and bar. Ineluctably, Elise, as a compulsory heir,26
their offspring will be left as if the marriage had has a cause of action for the declaration of the
been perfectly valid. That is why the action or absolute nullity of the void marriage of Eliseo
defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike and Amelia, and the death of either party to the
voidable marriages where the action prescribes. said marriage does not extinguish such cause of
Only the parties to a voidable marriage can action.
assail it but any proper interested party may
attack a void marriage.24 Having established the right of Elise to
impugn Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia, we now
It was emphasized in Niñal that in a void proceed to determine whether or not the
marriage, no marriage has taken place and it decedent’s marriage to Amelia is void for being
cannot be the source of rights, such that any bigamous.
interested party may attack the marriage
directly or collaterally without prescription, Contrary to the position taken by the
which may be filed even beyond the lifetime of petitioners, the existence of a previous marriage
the parties to the marriage.25 between Amelia and Filipito was sufficiently
established by no less than the Certificate of Section 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of
Marriage issued by the Diocese of Tarlac and Court lays down the preferred persons who are
signed by the officiating priest of the Parish of entitled to the issuance of letters of
San Nicolas de Tolentino in Capas, Tarlac. The administration, thus:
said marriage certificate is a competent
evidence of marriage and the certification from Sec. 6. When and to whom letters of
the National Archive that no information relative administration granted. — If no executor is
to the said marriage exists does not diminish named in the will, or the executor or executors
the probative value of the entries therein. We are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give
take judicial notice of the fact that the first bond, or a person dies intestate, administration
marriage was celebrated more than 50 years shall be granted:
ago, thus, the possibility that a record of
marriage can no longer be found in the National (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the
Archive, given the interval of time, is not case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the
completely remote. Consequently, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as
absence of any showing that such marriage had such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin,
been dissolved at the time Amelia and Eliseo’s requests to have appointed, if competent and
marriage was solemnized, the inescapable willing to serve;
conclusion is that the latter marriage is
bigamous and, therefore, void ab initio.27 (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the
case may be, or next of kin, or the person
Neither are we inclined to lend credence to selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling,
the petitioners’ contention that Elise has not or if the husband or widow, or next of kin,
shown any interest in the Petition for Letters of neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of
Administration. the person to apply for administration or to
request that administration be granted to some
other person, it may be granted to one or more
of the principal creditors, if competent and (d) The name of the person for whom letters
willing to serve; of administration are prayed.

(c) If there is no such creditor competent But no defect in the petition shall render void
and willing to serve, it may be granted to such the issuance of letters of administration.
other person as the court may select.
An "interested party," in estate proceedings,
Upon the other hand, Section 2 of Rule 79 is one who would be benefited in the estate,
provides that a petition for Letters of such as an heir, or one who has a claim against
Administration must be filed by an interested the estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate
person, thus: proceedings, the phrase "next of kin" refers to
those whose relationship with the decedent Is
Sec. 2. Contents of petition for letters of such that they are entitled to share in the
administration. — A petition for letters of estate as distributees.28
administration must be filed by an interested
person and must show, so far as known to the In the instant case, Elise, as a compulsory
petitioner: heir who stands to be benefited by the
distribution of Eliseo’s estate, is deemed to be
(a) The jurisdictional facts; an interested party. With the overwhelming
evidence on record produced by Elise to prove
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the her filiation to Eliseo, the petitioners’ pounding
heirs, and the names and residences of the on her lack of interest in the administration of
creditors, of the decedent; the decedent’s estate, is just a desperate
attempt to sway this Court to reverse the
(c) The probable value and character of the findings of the Court of Appeals. Certainly, the
property of the estate; right of Elise to be appointed administratix of
the estate of Eliseo is on good grounds. It is
founded on her right as a compulsory heir, who,
under the law, is entitled to her legitimate after ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
the debts of the estate are satisfied.29 Having a Associate Justice
vested right in the distribution of Eliseo’s estate
as one of his natural children, Elise can ATTESTATION
rightfully be considered as an interested party
within the purview of the law. I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation be lore
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the the case was assigned to the writer or the
petition is DENIED for lack of merit. opinion or the Court’s Division.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals assailed 28
November 2008 Decision and 7 August 2009 ATONIO T. CARPIO
Resolution, arc AFFIRMED in toto. Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
WE CONCUR: Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached
ANTONIO T. CARPIO in consultation before the case was assigned to
Associate Justic the writer or the opinion of the Court's Division.
Chairpersone
ARTURO D. BRION MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Chief Justice
Associate Justice
 Footnotes First Instance now Regional Trial Court of any
province in which he had estate. The court first
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. taking cognizance of the settlement of the
Garcia with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara- estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction
Salonga and Magdangal M. De Leon, to the exclusion of all other courts. The
concurring, CA rollo, pp.94-106. jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it
depends on the place of residence of the
2 Id. at 105. decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall
not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except
3 Special Proceeding No. M-3957. Records, in an appeal from that court, in the original
Vol. I, pp. 1-9. case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears
on the record.
4 Id. at 10.
8 Penned by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda.
5 Id. at 40-44. CA rollo, pp. 33-38.

6 Id. at 11. 9 Id. at 38.

7 Sec. 1. Where estate of deceased persons 10 Id. at 94-106.

settled. – If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a 11 Id. at 118-119.
citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or
letters of administration granted, and his estate 12 Rollo, pp. 32-33.
settled, in the Court of First Instance now
Regional Trial Court in the province in which he 13 Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.
resides at the time of his death, and if he is an L-40502 and L-42670, 29 November 1976, 74
inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of SCRA 189, 199.
 22 Juliano-Llave v. Republic, G.R. No.
14 Id. 169766, 30 March 2011, 646 SCRA 637, 656-
657 citing Niñal v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661, 673
15 Id. (2000).

16 Id. 23 Id.

17 Id. 24 Id. at 673.

18 Jao v. Court of Appeals, 432 Phil. 160, 25 Id.

170 (2002).
26 New Civil Code. Art. 961. In default of the
19 Id. testamentary heirs, the law vests the
inheritance, in accordance with the rules
20 Quiazon v. Garcia, Civil Case No. Q- hereinafter set forth, in the legitimate and
43712. Records, Vol. II, pp. 234-240. illegitimate relatives of the deceased, in the
surviving spouse, and in the State.
21 Golden (Iloilo) Delta Sales Corporation v.
Pre-Stress International Corporation, G.R. No. New Civil Code. Art. 988. In the absence of
176768, 12 January 2009, 576 SCRA 23, 35; legitimate descendants or ascendants, the
Seaoil Petroleum Corporation v. Autocorp illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire
Group, G.R. No. 164326, 17 October 2008, 569 estate of the deceased.
SCRA 387, 394; Ejercito v. M.R. Vargas
Construction, G.R. No. 172595, 10 April 2008, 27 Old Civil Code. Art. 83. Any marriage
551 SCRA 97, 106. subsequently contracted by any person during
the lifetime of the first spouse of such person
with any person other than such first spouse
shall be illegal and void from its performance, illegitimate relatives of the deceased, in the
unless: surviving spouse, and in the State.

(1) The first marriage was annulled or New Civil Code. Art. 988. In the absence of
dissolved; or legitimate descendants or ascendants, the
illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire
(2) The first spouse had been absent for estate of the deceased.
seven consecutive years at the time of the
second marriage without the spouse present
having news of the absentee being alive, or if
the absentee, though he has been absent for
less than seven years, is generally considered
as dead and believed to be so by the spouse
present at the time of contracting such
subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is
presumed dead according to Articles 390 and
391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid
in any of the three cases until declared null and
void by a competent court.

28 Solinap v. Locsin, Jr., 423 Phil. 192, 199

(2001).

29 New Civil Code. Art. 961. In default or the

testamentary heirs, the law, vests the
inheritance, in accordance with the rules
hereinafter set forth, in the legitimate and