Case Digest (G.R. No. L-62952)
Facts:
Sofia J. Nepomuceno v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Rufina Gomez, Oscar Jugo and Carmelita Jugo, G.R. No. 62952, October 09, 1985, Supreme Court First Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974, leaving a Last Will and Testament executed on August 15, 1968. The Will was signed and attested in the presence of three witnesses and acknowledged before a notary public. In the Will he named Sofia J. Nepomuceno (the petitioner) sole executor and devised his estate among his forced heirs (his legal wife Rufina Gomez and children Oscar and Carmelita Jugo) while granting the free portion to petitioner. The Will also expressly stated that Jugo had been estranged from his legal wife, had lived with petitioner "as man and wife" since 1952, and that he and petitioner had a marriage ceremony in Victoria, Tarlac on December 5, 1952.
On August 21, 1974 petitioner filed a petition for probate in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch XXXIV, Caloocan, and sought letters testamentary. On May 13, 1975 Rufina Gomez and her children opposed probate, alleging undue influence, the testator's ill health at execution, and that petitioner lived in concubinage and therefore lacked the integrity to receive letters. On January 6, 1976 the CFI denied probate, holding that the Will’s intrinsic provisions showed on their face an invalidity (rendering probate an idle exercise).
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court). On June 2, 1982 the Court of Appeals set aside the CFI decision, declared the Will validly drawn, but held the devise in favor of petitioner null and void under Article 739 in relation to Article 1028 of the Civil Code; its dispositive declared the properties passed by intestacy to the appellees in equal shares. A clerical-error motion correcting a word in the dispositive was granted August 10, 1982. Petitioner moved for reconsideration on August 23, 1982; the Court of Appeals denied the motion in a December 28, 1982 resolution.
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act in excess of jurisdiction by passing upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of petitioner after declaring the Will validly drawn in probate proceedings?
- Was the devise to petitioner null and void under Article 739, in relation to Article 1028 of the Civil Code, because petitioner and the testator were living in adultery or concubinage and pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)