Digest Nepomuceno Vs CA

SOFIA J. NEPOMUCENO vs.
CA, RUFINA GOMEZ, OSCAR JUGO ANG, CARMELITA JUGO

FACTS
In 1974, Martin Jugo died and left a last Will and Testament. In said Will, the testator named petitioner as
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 lawful wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. In fact testator and
petitioner were married before a Justice of the Peace. The testator devised to his forced heirs, his legal wife
and children, his entire estate, and the free portion thereof to petitioner.
Petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the will and asked for the issuance to her of letters testamentary.
Private respondents filed an opposition. Lower court denied the probate of the Will. Petitioner appealed to
respondent court, which set aside lower courts decision. Respondent court 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 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the
testamentary provision in favor of petitioner
RATIO DECIDENDI
The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when after declaring the Will to be validly drawn, it went on
to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the Will and declared the devise in favor of the petitioner null and void.
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 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 proceedings to determine the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions would be
superfluous.
Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
probated, the court should meet the issue.
There is no dispute over the extrinsic validity of the Will. Both parties agree it was executed with all the
formalities required by law and that the testator had the mental capacity to execute his Will.
The only issue, therefore, is the jurisdiction of the respondent court to declare the testamentary provision in
favor of the petitioner as null and void.
We sustain the respondent court's jurisdiction. As stated in Nuguid v. Nuguid, litigation will be protracted;
probability exists that the case will come up once again before us on the same issue of the intrinsic validity
or nullity of the will.
We see no useful purpose that would be served if we remand the nullified provision to the proper court in a
separate action for that purpose simply because, in the probate of a will, the court does not ordinarily look
into the intrinsic validity of its provisions.
Article 739 of the Civil Code provides:
The following donations shall be void:

(1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the
donation;
(2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense, in consideration
thereof;
(3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants, by reason of his office.
Article 1028 of the Civil Code provides:
The prohibitions mentioned in Article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to
testamentary provisions.
Nepomuceno contends that she acted in good faith for 22 years in the belief that she was legally married to
the testator.
The records do not sustain a finding of innocence or good faith. As argued by the private respondents: 1) will
expressly admits on its face the relationship between testator and petitioner, the devisee; and 2) petitioner
herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged ignorance of the true civil status of the testator,
which led private respondents to present contrary evidence.
Instead of limiting herself to proving the extrinsic validity of the will, it was petitioner who opted to present
evidence on her alleged good faith in marrying the testator.
Clearly, the good faith of petitioner was by option of the parties made a decisive issue right at the inception
of the case.
Confronted by the situation, the trial court had to make a ruling on the question.
Moreover, 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.

Digest Nepomuceno Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Nepomuceno Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Nepomuceno Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOFIA J. NEPOMUCENO vs.

CA, RUFINA GOMEZ, OSCAR JUGO ANG, CARMELITA JUGO

The following donations shall be void:

You might also like