Case Digest: Nepomuceno vs. CA, G.R. No. L-62952, October 9, 1985

 Art. 739 | Succession, Void Donations

Provision:

Article 739. 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. The prohibitions mentioned in article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions.

Ponente:

Gutierrez, Jr., J.

Facts:

On July 16, 1974, Martin Jugo died.

He left a Will appointing Sofia J. Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of his estate. 

In the said Will, he acknowledged his legal wife, Rufina Gomez, and their children Oscar and Carmelita.

He also stated that he had been living with petitioner Sofia J. Nepomuceno as husband and wife since 1952.

Sofia J. Nepomuceno filed for the probate of Martin Jugo's Will.

Rufina Gomez and her children opposed, alleging that the Will was executed under undue influence, and that the petitioner's living in concubinage with the testator made her unfit for inheritance.

Court of Appeals: Declared null and void a devise in favor of the petitioner in the last Will and Testament of Martin Jugo.

Issue:

WoN the court can pass on the intrinsic validity of a will. YES

Held:

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.

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.

There appears to be no more dispute at this time over the extrinsic validity of the Will. Both parties are agreed that the Will of Martin Jugo was executed with all the formalities required by law and that the testator had the mental capacity to execute his Will. The petitioner states that she completely agrees with the respondent court when in resolving the question of whether or not the probate court correctly denied the probate of Martin Jugo's last Will and Testament, it ruled: This being so, the will is declared validly drawn.

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.

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.

In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action.

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.