Eusebio vs. Eusebio, et al., 100 Phil. 593 , No.

L-8409 December 28, 1956

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