Case Summary (G.R. No. L-62952)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner: Sofia J. Nepomuceno
Oppositors/Respondents: Rufina Gomez; Oscar Jugo; Carmelita Jugo; Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court)
Key Dates
• August 15, 1968: Will executed by Martin Jugo
• July 16, 1974: Martin Jugo’s death in Malabon, Rizal
• August 21, 1974: Nepomuceno filed for probate in CFI Rizal, Caloocan
• May 13, 1975: Gomez and children filed opposition
• January 6, 1976: CFI denied probate for intrinsic invalidity (concubinage)
• June 3, 1982 (amended August 10, 1982): CA validated Will but struck devise to Nepomuceno under Civil Code arts. 739 & 1028
• December 28, 1982: CA denied Nepomuceno’s motion for reconsideration
• October 9, 1985: Supreme Court decision affirmed CA
Applicable Law
1973 Philippine Constitution (in force at time of decision); Civil Code arts. 739 (void donations between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage) and 1028 (extension to testamentary dispositions); Rules of Court (probate limited to extrinsic validity).
Procedural History
Nepomuceno obtained a formally valid Will that named her executor and devisee. Gomez et al. opposed probate alleging undue influence, testator infirmity, and petitioner’s concubinage. The trial court denied probate for intrinsic invalidity under art. 739. On appeal, the Court of Appeals recognized the Will’s formal validity but held the devise to Nepomuceno void under arts. 739 and 1028. A clerical correction re-characterized beneficiaries of the intestate remainder as Gomez and children. Reconsideration was denied.
Legal Issue
Whether a probate court may, in the same proceedings that establish a Will’s extrinsic validity, declare void a testamentary provision based on statutory prohibition against donations inter vivos or testamentary to a concubinary partner.
Extrinsic Versus Intrinsic Validity in Probate
Under Rules of Court, probate proceedings ordinarily focus on extrinsic validity—testamentary capacity and compliance with formalities—without resolving the intrinsic validity of dispositions. Jurisprudence (Fernandez v. Dimagiba; Sumilang v. Ramagosa; Castaneda v. Alemany) holds that a probate decree binds all as to formal execution but does not adjudicate the enforceability of legacies.
Exceptional Circumstances Doctrine
Recognizing “practical considerations,” the Supreme Court in Nuguid v. Nuguid and Balanay v. Martinez allowed probate courts to rule on intrinsic issues when a Will’s provisions are inherently void on their face—such as complete disinheritance of forced heirs or illicit bequests that render future probate an “idle ceremony.”
Application of Articles 739 and 1028
Martin Jugo’s Will expressly admitted his long-standing concubinage with Nepomuceno and devised property to her. Civil Code art. 739 invalidates donations between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage; art. 1028 extends this to testamentary dispositions. A forced-heirship sche
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-62952)
Facts of the Case
- Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal, leaving a four‐page last Will and Testament.
- The Will bore the testator’s signature on page 3 and marginal signatures on pages 1, 2, and 4, witnessed by Celestina Alejandro, Myrna C. Cortez, and Leandro Leano, and duly acknowledged before Notary Public Romeo Escareal.
- In Article III, the testator admitted a lawful marriage to Rufina Gomez and acknowledged two legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita Jugo, but noted estrangement from his wife since 1952.
- In Article IV, he declared he had lived “as man and wife” with Sofia J. Nepomuceno since December 5, 1952 (married before a Justice of the Peace in Victoria, Tarlac), but could not legally wed her due to his prior marriage.
- The Will appointed Sofia J. Nepomuceno as sole executor and devised the forced heirs’ share to his wife and children, and the free portion to Nepomuceno.
Procedural History
- On August 21, 1974, petitioner filed for probate in the CFI of Rizal, Branch XXXIV, Caloocan City, seeking letters testamentary.
- On May 13, 1975, Rufina Gomez and her children opposed, alleging undue influence, the testator’s illness, and petitioner’s concubinage.
- On January 6, 1976, the CFI denied probate, holding the Will intrinsically invalid on its face due to the admitted concubinage.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court).
Decision of the Court of Appeals
- On June 2, 1982, the appellate court set aside the CFI’s denial and declared the Will extrinsically valid.
- It held the devise to pet