G.R. No. 124099 - Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124099)

Factual Background

On January 3, 1992, Torcuato J. Reyes executed a two‑page last will and testament signed in the presence of three attesting witnesses, Antonio Veloso, Gloria Borromeo, and Soledad Gaputan. The will appointed Julio A. Vivares as executor and, in default, his son Roch Alan S. Vivares. Paragraph II of the will contained bequests to Asuncion Oning R. Reyes, described by the testator as his wife, including in subparagraph (a) certain personal properties and in subparagraph (b) one half of specified real properties located in Camiguin and Misamis Oriental. Reyes died on May 12, 1992. Vivares filed a petition for probate on May 21, 1992, with publication and service of notices as required.

Opposition and Grounds Alleged

On July 21, 1992, the recognized natural children of the decedent with Estebana Galolo and with Celsa Agape filed an opposition to probate. The oppositors alleged that the will had not been executed and attested with the prescribed formalities and that undue influence attended its execution. They further asserted that Asuncion Oning R. Reyes was legally married to one Lupo Ebarle at the time of her cohabitation with the testator, that she and the testator were collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree, and that any purported marriage was therefore void under Art. 38(1), Family Code, so that she could not be a compulsory heir and the devise was contrary to law and morals.

Trial Court Proceedings and Decision

The trial court acquired jurisdiction and received evidence. After hearing and memoranda, the court found that the will had been executed in conformity with formalities but concluded that Asuncion was never married to the decedent and that their relationship was adulterous and meretricious. The court reasoned that the illicit relationship constituted the principal consideration for the devise and that paragraphs II(a) and II(b) were therefore intrinsically invalid as contrary to law and morals. The trial court admitted the remainder of the will to probate and ordered issuance of letters testamentary.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Julio A. Vivares appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the oppositors failed to prove that Asuncion was married to another at the time she cohabited with the testator and that the trial court erred in striking down paragraph II(a) and II(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s admission of the will but reversed the invalidation of paragraph II and its subparagraphs. The appellate court held that the oppositors had not produced competent documentary or other evidence to rebut the presumption of marriage or to overcome the testator’s declaration that Asuncion was his wife. The Court of Appeals distinguished Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 206, on the ground that in Nepomuceno the testator expressly admitted concubinage in the will itself, whereas in the present will no such explicit admission of an illicit relationship appeared.

Petition for Review and Petitioners' Contentions

The oppositors filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court. They reiterated that Asuncion and the decedent were collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree and that Asuncion was married to Lupo Ebarle during her cohabitation with the testator, rendering any purported marriage void under Art. 38(1), Family Code and the devise ineffectual. They relied on witness testimony and, belatedly, on a copy of the marriage certificate of Asuncion and Lupo Ebarle, contending that the testimonial and documentary evidence destroyed the presumption of marriage between Asuncion and the testator.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Scope of Probate

The Court analyzed the proper scope of probate proceedings. It reiterated the settled rule that a probate court’s primary concern is the extrinsic validity of a will—that is, whether the instrument was executed with the formalities required by law and whether the testator had animus testandi and testamentary capacity. The Court explained that the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions is ordinarily not considered in probate and is usually examined only after the will has been proved and allowed, except in limited circumstances where an intrinsic defect is apparent on the face of the will, where practical considerations make a prior inquiry necessary, or where the parties agree that intrinsic validity should be resolved in the probate proceeding. The Court found that no such exceptional circumstances were present here.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Evidence and Waiver

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the oppositors failed to present competent evidence at the probate hearing to rebut the testator’s declaration that Asuncion was his wife. The Court characterized the testimonies relied upon by the oppositors as hearsay and uncertain as to the whereabouts or even existence of Lupo Ebarle. The Court further held that the oppositors’ failure to present the marriage certificate at the probate court constituted a waiver of that proof and that the belated submission of the certificate on appeal could not be entertained. The Court emphasized that it would not retry factual issues de novo and that appellate findings of fact will not be disturbed absent a showing that they are contrary to the record.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It denied the petition for review for lack of merit and sustained the Court of Appeals’ modification that paragraphs II, II(a), and II(b) of the last will and testament be declared valid. The Court therefore upheld admission of the will to probate, including the bequests to Asuncion, and affirmed issuance of letters testamentary in

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 124099)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Manuel G. Reyes, Mila G. Reyes, Danilo G. Reyes, Lyn Agape, Marites Agape, Estebana Galolo, and Celsa Agape were the oppositors and petitioners in the probate proceedings below.
Court of Appeals and Julio Vivares were respondents in the petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Julio A. Vivares filed a petition for probate of the will of Torcuato J. Reyes on May 21, 1992 in the Regional Trial Court of Mambajao, Camiguin.
The trial court conducted hearings, received evidence, and rendered judgment on April 23, 1993 admitting the will to probate except for specified provisions.
Julio A. Vivares appealed to the Court of Appeals, which promulgated its decision on November 29, 1995, and the oppositors filed a petition for review under G.R. No. 124099 to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court opinion was delivered by TORRES, JR., J. and the petition for review was resolved on October 30, 1997.

Key Factual Allegations

Torcuato J. Reyes executed his last will and testament on January 3, 1992, which included paragraph II bequeathing certain personal properties and one-half of specified real estate interests to "my wife Asuncion Oning R. Reyes."
The will was two pages long and was signed by Torcuato J. Reyes in the presence of three witnesses: Antonio Veloso, Gloria Borromeo, and Soledad Gaputan.
Julio A. Vivares was named executor and his son Roch Alan S. Vivares was named successor executor in default.
Torcuato J. Reyes died on May 12, 1992, and the probate petition was noticed by publication and by service to named persons.
On July 21, 1992, the recognized natural children of the deceased filed an opposition alleging lack of formal compliance, undue influence by Asuncion Oning R. Reyes, and that Asuncion Oning R. Reyes was already married to Lupo Ebarle, rendering any marriage with the testator void or immoral.
The oppositors later attached a copy of a marriage certificate between Asuncion Reyes and Lupo Ebarle as evidence of a pre-existing marriage.

Issues Presented

Whether the will was executed with the formalities required for probate and whether Torcuato J. Reyes had animus testandi.
Whether vices of consent or undue influence attend the execution of the will.
Whether paragraph II and its subparagraphs (a) and (b) were intrinsically invalid as being contrary to law and morals by virtue of the devisee's alleged pre-existing marriage or consanguinity.
Whether testimonial evidence presented at trial sufficed to overcome the presumption of a valid marital status as declared by the testator.

Contentions

The petitioners contended that Asuncion Oning R. Reyes was a collateral relative within the fourth civil degree of Torcuato J. Reyes and thus any marriage would be void under Article 38 (1) of the Family Code.
The petitioners further contended that Asuncion Oning R. Reyes was married to Lupo Ebarle at the time of her cohabitation with the testator, and that the testimonies and the testator's personal declarations destroyed the presumption of marriage.
The respondent contended that the oppositors failed to present competent documentary or other evidence at trial to prove a pre-existing marriage or illicit relationship and that the trial court erred in striking down paragraph II (a) and (b).

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court held that the wil