Facts
Petitioner filed a petition for probate of a will before the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya. Upon review of the petition and its attachments, the RTC observed that the decedent was allegedly residing in Marikina City at the time of death.
The RTC then required petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for improper venue pursuant to Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Despite the petitioner’s explanation, the RTC motu proprio dismissed the petition on the ground of improper venue.
Petitioner questioned the dismissal, arguing that venue is not jurisdictional and cannot be raised by the court on its own initiative.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio dismissing the petition for probate on the ground of improper venue.
Ruling
Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 73, Section 1 refers only to venue, not jurisdiction. Venue in estate proceedings is merely procedural and may be waived if not seasonably raised by an interested party.
Citing Fule v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that Rule 73, Section 1 merely relates to the venue of estate proceedings when it refers to the place of residence of the decedent in settlement of estates, probate of will, and issuance of letters of administration, and does not purport to define jurisdiction over estate proceedings.
The Court further emphasized, citing Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court (Dacoycoy), that it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to take a procedural shortcut by dismissing the plaintiffs 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.
The Court, citing Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City (Lietz), stated that improper venue is a waivable defect and cannot be raised by the court motu proprio.
Additionally, jurisprudence such as Spouses Cabrera v. Ng establishes that objections to improper venue must be timely raised in a motion to dismiss or answer; otherwise, they are deemed waived. The Court maintained its ruling in Dacoycoy and Lietz that courts may not motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue and stressed that the trial court should have taken cognizance of and heard petitioner’s petition in order to promote, not defeat, the ends of justice.
The Court stressed that only specific grounds—such as lack of jurisdiction—justify motu proprio dismissal. Since improper venue is not one of these grounds, the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition on its own initiative.
Accordingly, the dismissal was set aside, and the petition for probate was reinstated for further proceedings.