Case Digest (G.R. No. 124099)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 124099)
Facts:
Manuel G. Reyes, Mila G. Reyes, Danilo G. Reyes, Lyn Agape, Marites Agape, Estebana Galolo, and Celsa Agape v. Court of Appeals and Julio Vivares, G.R. No. 124099, October 30, 1997, the Supreme Court Second Division, Torres, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the recognized natural children of the late Torcuato J. Reyes; respondent Julio A. Vivares is the proponent and designated executor of Reyes's purported last will and testament; the Court of Appeals is the appealed-from tribunal. On January 3, 1992, Torcuato executed a two-page will, witnessed by Antonio Veloso, Gloria Borromeo and Soledad Gaputan, in which, among other dispositions, he bequeathed to “my wife Asuncion Oning R. Reyes” (a) certain personal properties and (b) one-half of various real estates. Vivares filed a petition for probate with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mambajao, Camiguin, after Reyes died on May 12, 1992.
Notices were published and served; on July 21, 1992, the deceased's recognized natural children (petitioners here) filed an opposition alleging noncompliance with testamentary formalities and undue influence, and asserting that Asuncion (“Oning”) could not be a lawful spouse because she was married to Lupo Ebarle and, moreover, that her relationship with Reyes was incestuous (collateral kin up to the fourth civil degree) and immoral, rendering the devise void. The RTC ruled on April 23, 1993 that the will complied with formalities and that the testator had animus testandi, but it declared paragraph II(a) and (b) null and void as contrary to law and morals because the relationship between Reyes and Asuncion was adulterous; the rest of the will was admitted to probate.
Vivares appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on November 29, 1995 affirmed the RTC's allowance of the will and issuance of Letters Testamentary to Vivares but modified the RTC by setting aside the nullification of paragraph II(a) and (b) and declaring those provisions valid, reasoning that the oppositors had failed to present competent documentary or corroborative evidence proving Asuncion was still married to another or that the relationship was illicit; the court gave weight to the testator's declaration in the will that Asuncion was his wife.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed this petition for review with the Supreme Court. They argued that (a) Asuncion and Reyes were collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree (citing Article 38(1) of the Family Code) and thus any marriage would be void ab initio, (b) Asuncion was still married to Ebarle at the time of cohabitation and thus could not validly be the testator's spouse, and (c) the witnesses’ testimonies and the testator’s own statements were sufficient to overcome any presumption of marriage. They also tendered a copy of Asuncion’s marriage certificate to Ebarle, produced after trial. The Supreme Court resolved the petition by affirming the Court of Appeals and denying the petition for review.
Issues:
- In a probate proceeding, may the probate court (or the appellate court on appeal) strike down provisions of a will as intrinsically invalid for illegality or immorality absent a patent defect on the face of the will or other exceptional circumstances?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the RTC’s declaration that paragraph II(a) and (b) of the will were null and void and in holding those provisions valid, given the oppositors’ testimonial evidence and the testator’s own declaration that Asuncion was his wife?
- May petitioners introduce belated documentary evidence (the marriage certificate of Asuncion and Lupo Ebarle) on appeal or in a petition for review to overturn the appellate factual findings?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)