The fact that the will was allowed during the lifetime of the testator meant merely that thepartition and distribution of the estate was to be suspended until the latter's death. In otherwords, the petitioner, instead of filing a new petition for the issuance of letters testamentary,should have simply filed a manifestation for the same purpose in the probate court.12Petitioner, who defends the order of Branch 65 allowing him to intervene, cites Rule 73, §1which states:Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the decedent is an inhabitant of thePhilippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, orletters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in theprovince in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreigncountry, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. The court firsttaking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction tothe exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends onthe place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested ina suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the wantof jurisdiction appears on the record.The above rule, however, actually provides for the venue of actions for the settlement of theestate of deceased persons. In Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals, it was held:13The aforequoted Section 1, Rule 73 (formerly Rule 75, Section 1), specifically the clause "sofar as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of the state," is inreality a matter of venue, as the caption of the Rule indicates: "Settlement of Estate ofDeceased Persons. Venue and Processes." It could not have been intended to define thejurisdiction over the subject matter, because such legal provision is contained in a law ofprocedure dealing merely with procedural matters. Procedure is one thing, jurisdiction over thesubject matter is another. The power or authority of the court over the subject matter "existedwas fixed before procedure in a given cause began." That power or authority is not altered orchanged by procedure, which simply directs the manner in which the power or authority shallbe fully and justly exercised. There are cases though that if the power is not exercisedconformably with the provisions of the procedural law, purely, the court attempting to exercise itloses the power to exercise it legally. However, this does not amount to a loss of jurisdictionover the subject matter. Rather, it means that the court may thereby lose jurisdiction over theperson or that the judgment may thereby be rendered defective for lack of something essentialto sustain it. The appearance of this provision in the procedural law at once raises a strongpresumption that it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter.