Garcia-Quiazon vs. Belen

For purposes of venue in estate settlement proceedings under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, "residence" means actual physical residence or place of abode where the decedent resides with continuity and consistency, not domicile in the technical sense; a void marriage for bigamy may be collaterally attacked in estate proceedings even after the death of the parties by any compulsory heir whose successional rights are prejudiced; and a natural child is an "interested party" entitled to letters of administration as a compulsory heir under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Eliseo Quiazon died intestate on December 12, 1992, leaving behind two families: his wife Amelia Garcia-Quiazon and their children Jenneth and Jennifer, and his common-law wife Ma. Lourdes Belen and their daughter Maria Lourdes Elise Quiazon. Eliseo had been living with Belen in Las Piñas City from 1975 until his death, while maintaining a separate residence in Capas, Tarlac with Amelia. Prior to his death, Eliseo filed a judicial partition case against Amelia before the RTC of Quezon City questioning the validity of their marriage on grounds of bigamy.

• Eliseo Quiazon died intestate on December 12, 1992.
• On September 12, 1994, Maria Lourdes Elise Quiazon (Elise), represented by her mother Ma. Lourdes Belen, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration before the RTC of Las Piñas City (SP Proc. No. M-3957).
• Elise claimed she was the natural child of Eliseo, conceived and born while her parents were capacitated to marry each other.
• Elise impugned the validity of Eliseo's marriage to Amelia Garcia-Quiazon, alleging it was bigamous as Amelia had a prior subsisting marriage with Filipito Sandico.
• Elise attached her Certificate of Live Birth signed by Eliseo as father to prove filiation.
• Elise alleged Eliseo left real properties worth P2,040,000.00 and personal properties worth P2,100,000.00, and sought appointment as administratrix to preserve the estate.
• Amelia and her children Jenneth and Jennifer filed an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss, claiming improper venue based on Eliseo's Death Certificate indicating residence in Capas, Tarlac, and asserting no factual or legal bases existed for Elise's appointment.
• The RTC ruled venue was properly laid in Las Piñas City, discrediting the Death Certificate as hearsay, and directed issuance of Letters of Administration to Elise upon posting bond.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto on November 28, 2008, finding Eliseo and Belen lived together as husband and wife at No. 26 Everlasting Road, Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City from 1975 to 1992.
• The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on August 7, 2009.

• The venue was improperly laid in Las Piñas City because Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarlac at the time of his death as shown by his Death Certificate, and pursuant to Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petition should have been filed in Capas, Tarlac.
• The Court of Appeals erred in declaring Amelia's marriage to Eliseo void ab initio due to pre-existing marriage.
• Elise Quiazon failed to show any interest in the Petition for Letters of Administration.

• Eliseo actually resided in Las Piñas City with Lourdes Belen from 1975 until his death in 1992, making Las Piñas the proper venue.
• Amelia's marriage to Eliseo was void ab initio for being bigamous as Amelia had a prior undissolved marriage with Filipito Sandico, proven by a Certificate of Marriage from the Diocese of Tarlac.
• As a natural child and compulsory heir of Eliseo, Elise has a vested interest in the estate and is entitled to appointment as administratrix under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City had jurisdiction over the settlement of Eliseo Quiazon's estate given the conflicting evidence regarding his residence at the time of death.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the marriage between Eliseo Quiazon and Amelia Garcia-Quiazon was void ab initio for being bigamous and whether its validity could be attacked in the estate proceedings after Eliseo's death.
  • Whether Maria Lourdes Elise Quiazon, as a natural child, is an "interested party" entitled to the issuance of Letters of Administration over Eliseo's estate.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court held that for purposes of venue under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, "resides" connotes "actual residence" or physical place of abode rather than domicile in the technical sense. Residence signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat with continuity and consistency.
  • The Court found that Eliseo actually resided at No. 26 Everlasting Road, Phase 5, Pilar Village, Las Piñas City from 1975 until his death in 1992, living with Lourdes Belen and deporting themselves as husband and wife.
  • The entry in the Death Certificate indicating Capas, Tarlac as residence is not binding on courts and may be overcome by other evidence showing actual residence elsewhere.
  • The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court regarding Eliseo's actual residence, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that Amelia's marriage to Eliseo was void ab initio for being bigamous. The existence of Amelia's prior marriage to Filipito Sandico was sufficiently established by the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Diocese of Tarlac. Absent any showing that this prior marriage was dissolved before Amelia married Eliseo, the latter marriage is void from the beginning.
  • The Court applied the doctrine in Niñal v. Bayadog that void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party, unlike voidable marriages which can only be assailed during the lifetime of the parties. A void marriage is deemed to have never taken place and cannot be the source of rights.
  • Elise, as a compulsory heir whose successional rights would be prejudiced by the void marriage, has legal standing to impugn the marriage directly or collaterally in the estate settlement proceedings, and this right is not extinguished by Eliseo's death.
  • As a natural child and compulsory heir entitled to succeed to the entire estate in the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants under Articles 961 and 988 of the Civil Code, Elise is an "interested party" under Section 2, Rule 79 and Section 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court, entitled to appointment as administratrix.

• Residence for Venue Purposes — In the application of venue statutes and rules, "residence" means actual residence or place of abode where a person resides with continuity and consistency, rather than domicile in the technical sense. It signifies physical presence and actual stay in a place.
• Void vs. Voidable Marriage Distinction — Void marriages are deemed to have never taken place and cannot be the source of rights. They may be attacked directly or collaterally by any interested party even beyond the lifetime of the parties. Voidable marriages, by contrast, can only be assailed during the lifetime of the parties and prescribe if not timely questioned.
• Imprescriptibility of Actions for Nullity of Void Marriages — Actions or defenses for the declaration of nullity of void marriages do not prescribe and may be filed even after the death of either or both parties to the marriage.
• Standing of Compulsory Heirs in Estate Proceedings — Any compulsory heir whose successional rights would be prejudiced by a void marriage has a cause of action to attack the validity of such marriage in estate settlement proceedings, regardless of the death of the parties.

• "The term 'resides' connotes ex vi termini 'actual residence' as distinguished from 'legal residence or domicile.' This term 'resides,' like the terms 'residing' and 'residence,' is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed."
• "In the application of venue statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature – residence rather than domicile is the significant factor."
• "Residence, in the context of venue provisions, means nothing more than a person's actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency."
• "Consequently, void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid."
• "In a void marriage, it was though no marriage has taken place, thus, it cannot be the source of rights. Any interested party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally. A void marriage can be questioned even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the marriage."

• Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the definition of "resides" as actual residence rather than domicile in the technical sense for venue purposes.
• Jao v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the proposition that venue for ordinary civil actions and special proceedings have the same meaning regarding residence.
• Niñal v. Bayadog — Controlling precedent establishing that void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party, unlike voidable marriages which prescribe and can only be attacked during the parties' lifetime.
• Juliano-Llave v. Republic — Cited for the rule that void marriages can be questioned even beyond the lifetime of the parties.
• Solinap v. Locsin, Jr. — Cited for the definition of "interested party" and "next of kin" in estate proceedings.
• Golden (Iloilo) Delta Sales Corporation v. Pre-Stress International Corporation — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court.

• Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court — Governs the venue for settlement of estate of deceased persons, requiring the petition to be filed in the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death.
• Section 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court — Enumerates the preferred persons entitled to the issuance of letters of administration (surviving spouse, next of kin, creditors, etc.).
• Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for letters of administration be filed by an "interested person."
• Article 83 of the Old Civil Code — Provides that any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void from its performance unless the first marriage was annulled or dissolved, or the first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years under specific circumstances.
• Article 961 of the New Civil Code — Provides that in default of testamentary heirs, the law vests inheritance in the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of the deceased.
• Article 988 of the New Civil Code — Provides that in the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.