8/10/2019 Rule 73_No3_Jao vs. CA

1/1

Rule 73, No.3

JAO v CAGR 128314, May 29, 2002

FACTS: Rodolfo and Perico Jao were the only sons of the spouses Ignacio Jao Tayag and Andrea V. Jao,who died intestate in 1988 and 1989, respectiely. The decedents left real estate, cash, shares of stoc!and other personal properties.

"n April 1#, 1991, Perico instituted a petition for issuance of letters of ad$inistration %efore the RegionalTrial &ourt of 'ue(on &ity, )ranch 99, oer the estate of his parents.

Rodolfo $oed to dis$iss the petition on the ground of i$proper enue. *e argued that their parents didnot reside in 'ue(on &ity either during their lifeti$e or at the ti$e of their deaths. Their actual residencewas in Angeles &ity, Pa$panga, and $oed to Rodolfo+s residence at 1 -cout andia -treet, 'ue(on&ity, solely for $edical treat$ent and hospitali(ation purposes.

Perico countered that their parents actually resided in Rodolfo+s house in 'ue(on &ity at the ti$e of theirdeaths. As a $atter of fact, it was conclusiely declared in their death certificates that their last residence%efore they died was at 1 -cout andia -treet, 'ue(on &ity. Rodolfo hi$self een supplied the entryappearing on the death certificate of their $other, Andrea, and affi/ed his own signature on the said

docu$ent.

The RT& denied Rodolfo+s $otion to dis$iss. The &A affir$ed the RT&+s order.

ISSUE: 0here should the settle$ent proceedings %e had in Pa$panga, where the decedents hadtheir per$anent residence, or in 'ue(on &ity, where they actually stayed %efore their de$ise2

HELD: Qu!"# C$%y&

In deter$ining residence at the ti$e of death, the following factors $ust %e considered, na$ely, thedecedent had3

4a5 capacity to choose and freedo$ of choice64%5 physical presence at the place chosen6 and

4c5 intention to stay therein per$anently.

There is su%stantial proof that the decedents hae transferred to petitioner+s 'ue(on &ityresidence. Petitioner failed to sufficiently refute respondent+s assertion that their elderly parents stayed inhis house for so$e three to four years %efore they died in the late 1987s.

The decedents+ respectie death certificates state that they were %oth residents of 'ue(on &ity at theti$e of their de$ise. -ignificantly, it was petitioner hi$self who filled up his late $other+s death certificate.This unualifiedly shows that at that ti$e, at least, petitioner recogni(ed his deceased $other+s residenceto %e 'ue(on &ity. oreoer, petitioner failed to contest the entry in Ignacio+s death certificate,acco$plished a year earlier %y respondent.

In Garcia-Fule v. Court of Appeals, the &ourt clarified that the ter$ :resides; $eans :the personal, actual

or physical ha%itation of a person, actual residence or place of a%ode. It signifies physical presence in aplace and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the ter$ $eans $erely residence, that is, personalresidence, not legal residence or do$icile.;

In addition, there is no distinction %etween enue for ordinary ciil actions and that for specialproceedings. They hae one and the sa$e $eaning. As thus defined, :residence;, in the conte/t ofenue proisions, $eans nothing $ore than a person+s actual residence or place of a%ode, proided heresides therein with continuity and consistency.