Here’s what the law says.
“The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, confers upon Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) jurisdiction over all probate cases independently of the place of residence of the deceased. Because of the existence of numerous Courts of First Instance in the country, the Rules of Court, however purposely fixes the venue or the place where each case shall be brought” (Gacad v. Corpus, G.R. No. 216107, August 3, 2022).
However, Batas Pambansa 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 and Republic Act No. 11576 divided the jurisdiction of trial courts in probate and settlement of estates cases based on the estate’s value. Hence, where the value of the estate exceeds Php 2Million, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction while if the value does not exceed Php 2Million, the Metropolitan Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction.
Following this, “the place of residence of the deceased in settlement of estates, probate of will, and issuance of letters of administration does not constitute an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter.” “As early as Fule v. Court of Appeals, [the Supreme Court] explained that Rule 73, Section 1 merely relates to the venue of estate proceedings when it refers to the place of residence of the decedent [or where the estate is found]… and does not purport to define jurisdiction over estate proceedings” (G.R. No. 216107, August 3, 2022).
“Section 1, Rule 73 (formerly Rule 75, Section 1), specifically the clause ‘so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of the estate,’ is in reality a matter of venue… It could not have been intended to define the jurisdiction over the subject matter… [since] [p]rocedure is one thing; jurisdiction over the subject matter is another”(G.R. No. 216107, August 3, 2022).
“That power or authority is not altered or changed by procedure, which simply directs the manner in which the power or authority shall be fully and justly exercised. There are cases though that if the power is not exercised conformably with the provisions of the procedural law, purely, the court attempting to exercise it loses the power to exercise it legally” (G.R. No. 216107, August 3, 2022).
In the case of Gacad v. Corpuz, “the trial court opined that Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, as amended, fixes jurisdiction for purposes of special proceedings for the settlement of estate so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate; thus, it is the RTC of the province or city where the decedent resided at the time of her death that has exclusive jurisdiction over decedent’s estate.”
Relying on this reasoning, the trial court dismissed in its own initiative or motu proprio the Petition for Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Ermelinda Gacad. “Noting that the decedent’s death certificate states Marikina City as her residence, the trial court opined that it is the RTC of Marikina City that has exclusive jurisdiction over the petition for probate [and not the RTC of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya]” (G.R. No. 216107, August 3, 2022).
“[I]t is settled that courts may not motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue. In Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court (Dacoycoy), [the Supreme Court] ruled that it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to take a procedural shortcut by dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of improper venue even before summons was served on the defendant therein and without any of the parties raising objections to the venue.”
“Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss [which is now only an affirmative defense that may be raised in an Answer pursuant to the 2019 Amendment to Civil Procedure], the venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised.”
“The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant’s prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case. “[T]he Court in Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City (Lietz) instructs that the trial court may only dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription” (G.R. No. 216107, August 3, 2022).
“The ruling in Dacoycoy has since been reiterated in several cases and has likewise been applied to special proceedings. In Cabrera v. Philippine Statistics Authority, [the Supreme Court] ordered the reinstatement of a petition for correction of information and cancellation in the Report of Birth which had previously been motu proprio dismissed by the trial court on the ground of improper venue” (G.R. No. 216107, August 3, 2022).
While procedure in regular cases prohibits the motu proprio dismissal or filing of a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue (see Rule 9, Section 1 and Rule 15, Section 12 of the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure), the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Expedited Rules) now allow motu proprio dismissal on said ground for Summary Procedure and Small Claims cases (see Rule III (A), 4 and Rule IV, Section 9 of the Expedited Rules). It must, however, be underscored that probate cases and judicial settlements of estate are not covered by the Expedited Rules [see Rule 1, A(1)9b)].
