Sofia J. Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-62952, October 9, 1985 First Division — Gutierrez, Jr., J.

 

FACTS

Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal, leaving a last will and testament. In the will, he acknowledged that he was legally married to Rufina Gomez, with whom he had two legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita. The will further stated that Jugo had been separated from Rufina since 1952 and had been living with Sofia J. Nepomuceno as husband and wife. Jugo and Sofia were subsequently married in Victoria, Tarlac, despite his existing marriage to Rufina.

Jugo designated Sofia as the sole and only executor of his estate. In the will, he provided for his legal wife and children as his forced heirs and gave the free portion of his estate to Sofia. Sofia thereafter filed a petition for the probate of the will and for the issuance of letters testamentary. Rufina and her children opposed the probate, among other grounds, on the basis of the circumstances surrounding the relationship between Jugo and Sofia.

The trial court denied probate of the will. It held that because the will itself admitted that Jugo and Sofia had been living together as husband and wife while Jugo was still legally married to Rufina, the devise in favor of Sofia was intrinsically invalid. Sofia appealed. The Court of Appeals later set aside the trial court's denial of probate and declared the will validly drawn, but held that the devise in favor of Sofia was null and void under Article 739 in relation to Article 1028 of the Civil Code.

Sofia elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to determine the intrinsic validity of the devise during the probate proceeding. The Supreme Court noted that the parties no longer disputed the extrinsic validity of the will and that the principal issue was whether the probate court could determine the validity of the testamentary provision in Sofia's favor.

ISSUE

The first issue was whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction, in the probate proceeding, to determine the intrinsic validity of the devise in favor of Sofia Nepomuceno.

The second issue was whether the devise in favor of Sofia Nepomuceno was void under Article 739 of the Civil Code because the testator had been living with her in concubinage.

The third issue was whether the validity of the will's testamentary provisions should have been determined only in a separate proceeding after the will had been admitted to probate.

HELD

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the appellate court acted within its jurisdiction when, after determining that the will was validly executed, it proceeded to determine the intrinsic validity of the devise in favor of Sofia.

The Court recognized the general rule that in probate proceedings, the court ordinarily determines only the extrinsic validity of the will, including the testamentary capacity of the testator and compliance with the formal requirements prescribed by law. However, the Court reiterated the exception recognized in Nuguid v. Nuguid and Balanay, Jr. v. Martinez: when practical considerations make it necessary to determine the intrinsic validity of a will during probate, the court may do so rather than subject the parties to unnecessary and prolonged litigation.

The Court held that the devise to Sofia was null and void under Article 739 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 1028. Article 739 prohibits donations between persons who are guilty of adultery or concubinage. The Court applied this prohibition to testamentary dispositions because Article 1028 expressly extends the provisions concerning prohibited donations to testamentary dispositions. The testator himself had expressly admitted in his will that he had been living with Sofia as husband and wife while his marriage to Rufina remained subsisting.

The Court further held that the invalidity of the devise did not render the entire will void. The will was validly drawn, but the particular devise in favor of Sofia was void. The properties covered by the invalid devise therefore passed in intestacy to the proper heirs. The Court consequently dismissed Sofia's petition for certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, with no pronouncement as to costs.