- CASE DIGEST -
Nepomuceno
v.CA
139 SCRA 206
October 9, 1985
FACTS: Martin Jugo died with last Will and Testament with all the
formalities required by law. In the said Will, the testator named and appointed
herein petitioner Sofia J. Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of his
estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the testator was legally married
to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, Oscar and
Carmelita, but since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife
and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. In fact, on December
5, 1952, the testator Martin Jugo and the petitioner herein, Sofia J. Nepomuceno
were married in Victoria, Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace.
The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina
Gomez and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free
portion thereof to herein petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for the
probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo in the CFI
Rizal and asked for the issuance to her of letters testamentary. The legal wife
of the testator, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition.
The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that as the
testator admitted in his Will to cohabiting with the petitioner from December
1952 until his death on July 16, 1974, the Will's admission to probate will be
an idle exercise because on the face of the Will, the invalidity of its
intrinsic provisions is evident.
The case reached the CA and the respondent court set aside the decision
of the CFI of Rizal denying the probate of the will. The CA declared the Will
to be valid except that the devise in favor of the petitioner is null and void
pursuant to Article 739 in relation with Article 1028.
ISSUE: WON the probate court can pass upon the
intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of herein petitioner.
HELD Yes, as an exception. The general rule is that in probate
proceedings, the court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination and
resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will. The rule, however, is not
inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is
not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain
provisions of the Will.
In Nuguid v. Nuguid, the
testator instituted the petitioner as universal heir and completely preterited
her surviving forced heirs. A will of this nature, no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically, would be null
and void. Separate or latter proceedings to determine the intrinsic validity of
the testamentary provisions would be superfluous.
The prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against the making
of a donation between persons who are living in adultery or concubinage. It is
the donation which becomes void. The giver cannot give even assuming that the recipient
may receive. The very wordings of the Will invalidate the legacy because the
testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a person with whom he had
been living in concubinage.
Here, the will itself admitted on its face the relationship between the
testator and the petitioner. The will was validly executed in accordance with
law but the court didn't find it to serve a practical purpose to remand the
nullified provision in a separate action for that purpose only since in the
probate of a will, the court does not ordinarily look into the intrinsic
validity of its provisions. Thus, the devisee is invalid by virtue of Art. 739
which voids a donation made between persons guilty of adultery/concubinage at
the time of the donations. Under Art, 1028 it is also prohibited.
No comments:
Post a Comment