Nepomuceno vs.
CA
G.R No. L-62952. October 9, 1985
FACTS: In 1974, Martin Jugo died and left a last Will and Testament. In said Will, the testator named
petitioner as executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the testator was legally married to a
certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita, but since 1952, he
had been estranged from his lawful wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. In fact
testator and petitioner were married before a Justice of the Peace. The testator devised to his forced heirs,
his legal wife and children, his entire estate, and the free portion thereof to petitioner. Petitioner filed for
the probate of the will but the legal wife and her children opposed alleging that the will was procured
through improper and undue influence given that that at the time of the execution of the Will, the testator
was already very sick and that there was an admission of concubinage with the petitioner. The lower
court denied the probate on the ground of the testator's admission of cohabitation, hence making the will
invalid on its face. The CA reversed and held that the will is valid except the devise in favor of the
petitioner which is null and void in violation of Art. 739 and 1028.
ISSUE: W/n a probate court has jurisdiction to declare testamentary provisions as null and void.
RULING: Yes. The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when after declaring the Will to be
validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the Will and declared the devise in favor of
the petitioner null and void. The general rule is that the court's area of inquiry is limited to the an
examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the will. This general rule is however not inflexible
and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation
constrains it to do and may pass upon certain provisions of the will. There is no question from the records
about the fact of a prior existing marriage when Martin Jugo executed his Will. The very wordings of the
Will invalidate the legacy because the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a person with
whom he had been living in concubinage. The will was validly executed in accordance with law but the
court didn't find it to serve a practical purpose to remand the nullified provision in a separate action for
that purpose only since in the probate of a will, the court does not ordinarily look into the intrinsic
validity of its provisions. The devisee is invalid by virtue of Art. 739 which voids a donation made
between persons guilty of adultery/concubinage at the time of the donations.
