Case Digest (G.R. No. 209835) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Petitioner Sofia J. Nepomuceno filed a petition for the probate of the last Will and Testament of her partner, Martin Jugo, who died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. The Will, executed on August 15, 1968 before Notary Public Romeo Escareal and witnessed by Celestina Alejandro, Myrna C. Cortez, and Leandro Leano, appointed petitioner as sole executor and provided that the forced heirs—legal wife Rufina Gomez and children Oscar and Carmelita Jugo—receive their legitimes, with the remaining free portion devised to petitioner. The instrument disclosed that Jugo, though lawfully married to Gomez, had been estranged from her since 1952 and cohabited with petitioner as man and wife, even contracting a clandestine marriage in Tarlac on December 5, 1952 despite his existing valid marriage. On January 6, 1976, the Court of First Instance of Rizal denied the probate petition, ruling the Will’s intrinsic provisions void for admitting concubinage. On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Cou Case Digest (G.R. No. 209835) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Testator and Will
- Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal, leaving a holographic Will executed on August 15, 1968.
- The Will named petitioner Sofia J. Nepomuceno as sole executrix and devised the entire estate to his legal heirs (wife Rufina Gomez and children Oscar and Carmelita) and the free portion to Nepomuceno.
- Marital and domestic relationships
- Testator was legally married to Rufina Gomez (two legitimate children) but estranged since 1952.
- From December 5, 1952 until his death, he cohabited with Nepomuceno and later solemnized a purported marriage before a Justice of the Peace in Tarlac.
- Probate proceedings
- August 21, 1974: Nepomuceno filed for probate in the CFI of Rizal.
- May 13, 1975: Rufina Gomez and children opposed, alleging undue influence, testator’s sickness, and Nepomuceno’s concubinage.
- January 6, 1976: CFI denied probate, citing on-face invalidity of nepotistic devise due to concubinage admission.
- June 2, 1982: CA set aside CFI decision, upheld formal validity of Will but declared Nepomuceno’s devise null under Art. 739 and 1028 CC, passing properties intestate to legal heirs.
- August 10, 1982: CA corrected “appellant” to “appellees” in dispositive portion.
- December 28, 1982: CA denied Nepomuceno’s motion for reconsideration.
Issues:
- Scope of probate jurisdiction
- Whether the appellate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the devise in Nepomuceno’s favor during probate.
- Whether probate proceedings are limited to extrinsic validity (formal execution and capacity) or may cover intrinsic validity under exceptional circumstances.
- Proper forum for nullity of testamentary provisions
- Whether nullity under Art. 739 (interdiction on donations between concubine and donor) must be raised in a separate action by the legal spouse.
- Whether the CA should have confined itself to declaring the Will formally valid and left intrinsic challenges for separate litigation.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)