Eusebio Vs. Eusebio Case Digest.docx

Eusebio vs. Eusebio In the matter of the Intestate of the deceased Andres Eusebio. Eugenio Eusebio, petitioner and appellee, vs. Amanda Eusebio, Virginia Eusebio, Juan Eusebio, et al., oppositors and appellants. December 28, 1956 | Concepcion Facts: Petitioner Eugenio Eusebio filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for his appointment as administrator of the estate of his father, Andres Eusebio. He alleged that his father, who died on November 28, 1952, resided in Quezon City. Eugenio’s siblings (Amanda, Virginia, Juan, Delfin, Vicente and Carlos), stating that they are illegitimate children of Andres, opposed the petition and alleged that Andres was domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. They prayed that the case be dismissed upon the ground that venue had been improperly laid. The CFI of Rizal granted Eugenio’s petition and overruled his siblings’ objection. Issue: Whether venue had been properly laid in Rizal? Held: No. Don Andres Eusebio up to October 29, 1952, was and had always been domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga. He only bought a house and lot at 889-A Espana Extension, Quezon City because his son, Dr. Jesus Eusebio, who treated him, resided at No. 41 P. Florentino St., Quezon City. Even before he was able to transfer to the house he bought, Andres suffered a stroke and was forced to live in his son’s residence. It is well settled that “domicile is not commonly changed by presence in a place merely for one own’s health” even if coupled with “knowledge that one will never again be able, on account of illness, to return home. Having resided for over seventy years in Pampanga, the presumption is that Andres retained such domicile. Andres had no intention of staying in Quezon City permanently. There is no direct evidence of such intent – Andres did not manifest his desire to live in Quezon City indefinitely; Eugenio did not testify thereon; and Dr. Jesus Eusebio was not presented to testify on the matter. Andres did not part with, or alienate, his house in San Fernando, Pampanga. Some of his children remained in that municipality. In the deed of sale of his house at 889 – A Espana Ext., Andres gave San Fernando, Pampanga, as his residence. The marriage contract signed by Andres when he was married in articulo mortis to Concepcion Villanueva two days prior to his death stated that his residence is San Fernando, Pampanga. The requisites for a change of domicile include (1) capacity to choose and freedom of choice, (2) physical presence at the place chosen, (3) intention to stay therein permanently. Although Andres complied with the first two requisites, there is no change of domicile because the third requisite is absent. Anent the contention that appellants submitted themselves to the authority of the CFI of Rizal because they introduced evidence on the residence of the decedent, it must be noted that appellants specifically made of record that they were NOT submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, except for the purpose only of assailing the same. In sum, the Court found that Andres was, at the time of his death, domiciled in San Fernando, Pampanga; that the CFI of Rizal had no authority, therefore, to appoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased, the venue having been laid improperly. Doctrine: Domicile once acquired is retained until a new domicile is gained. It is not changed by presence in a place for one’s own health.