Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 SCRA 206

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision declaring the last will and testament of Martin Jugo valid but ruling the devise to Sofia Nepomuceno null and void. While probate courts generally only examine a will's extrinsic validity, exceptional circumstances allowed the lower courts to consider intrinsic validity. Specifically, the testator's admission of an illicit relationship with the devisee made the devise's invalidity evident on the will's face. Therefore, the Court of Appeals acted within its jurisdiction to pass upon both extrinsic and intrinsic validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 SCRA 206

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    61 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision declaring the last will and testament of Martin Jugo valid but ruling the devise to Sofia Nepomuceno null and void. While probate courts generally only examine a will's extrinsic validity, exceptional circumstances allowed the lower courts to consider intrinsic validity. Specifically, the testator's admission of an illicit relationship with the devisee made the devise's invalidity evident on the will's face. Therefore, the Court of Appeals acted within its jurisdiction to pass upon both extrinsic and intrinsic validity.

    Original Description:

    Wills Case Digest

    Original Title

    50. Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 SCRA 206

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision declaring the last will and testament of Martin Jugo valid but ruling the devise to Sofia Nepomuceno null and void. While probate courts generally only examine a will's extrinsic validity, exceptional circumstances allowed the lower courts to consider intrinsic validity. Specifically, the testator's admission of an illicit relationship with the devisee made the devise's invalidity evident on the will's face. Therefore, the Court of Appeals acted within its jurisdiction to pass upon both extrinsic and intrinsic validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    61 views2 pages

    Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 SCRA 206

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision declaring the last will and testament of Martin Jugo valid but ruling the devise to Sofia Nepomuceno null and void. While probate courts generally only examine a will's extrinsic validity, exceptional circumstances allowed the lower courts to consider intrinsic validity. Specifically, the testator's admission of an illicit relationship with the devisee made the devise's invalidity evident on the will's face. Therefore, the Court of Appeals acted within its jurisdiction to pass upon both extrinsic and intrinsic validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Nepomuceno vs.

    CA
    Effect of Allowance of Wills
    G.R. No. Ponente Date
    L-62952 GUTIERREZ, J. October 9, 1985
    Petitioners Respondents
    SOFIA J. NEPOMUCENO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RUFINA
    GOMEZ, OSCAR JUGO ANG, CARMELITA JUGO

    DOCTRINE:

    I. Facts of the case

    • Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. He left a last Will and Testament duly signed
    by him at the end of the Will on page three and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof in
    the presence of Celestina Alejandro, Myrna C. Cortez, and Leandro Leano, who in turn, affixed their
    signatures below the attestation clause and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 of the Will in the
    presence of the testator and of each other and the Notary Public. The Will was acknowledged
    before the Notary Public Romeo Escareal by the testator and his three attesting witnesses.
    • In the said Will, the testator named and appointed Sofia J. Nepomuceno as the sole and only
    executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the he was legally married to Rufina
    Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita, but since 1952, he had been
    estranged and had been living with Nepomuceno as husband and wife.
    • On December 5, 1952, Martin Jugo and 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.
    • On August 21, 1974, Nepomuceno filed a petition for the probate of the last Will and Testament
    of the deceased Martin Jugo in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXIV, Caloocan City
    and asked for the issuance to her of letters testamentary.
    • On May 13, 1975, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition alleging inter alia that the
    execution of the Will was procured by undue and improper influence on the part of the petitioner;
    that at the time of the execution of the Will, the testator was already very sick and that petitioner
    having admitted her living in concubinage with the testator, she is wanting in integrity and thus,
    letters testamentary should not be issued to her.
    • On January 6, 1976, 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.
    • On appeal by Nepomuceno to the Court of Appeals, the latter REVERSED the CFI of Caloocan City,
    Rizal, it 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.

    II. Issue/s

    Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last
    Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic
    validity of the testamentary provision?

    III. Ratio/Legal Basis

    ● NO, the Court of Appeals DID NOT act in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will
    and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo as validly drawn, and it DID NOT pass upon the
    intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision
    ● 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 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.
    ● We are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual provisions of the will, which are of dubious
    legality, and because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court
    assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's authorization) the trial court acted correctly in
    passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. The
    probate of a will might become an Idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.
    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.

    IV. Disposition
    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals,
    now Intermediate Appellate Court, is AFFIRMED. No costs.

    V. Notes

    • There is no question from the records about the fact of a prior existing marriage when Martin Jugo
    executed his Will. There is also no dispute that the petitioner and Mr. Jugo lived together in an
    ostensible marital relationship for 22 years until his death
    • It is also a fact that on December 2, 1952, Martin Jugo and Sofia J. Nepomuceno contracted a
    marriage before the Justice of the Peace of Victoria, Tarlac. The man was then 51 years old while
    the woman was 48. Nepomuceno now 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.
    • 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.

    You might also like