G.R. No. L-62952 October 9, 1985 NEPOMUCENO vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal.

He left a last Will and Testament duly signed by him.

In the said Will, the testator named and appointed herein petitioner as his sole and only 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, but since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife.

The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina Gomez and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free portion thereof to herein petitioner.

 

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of herein petitioner.

 

HELD:

The petitioner submits that the validity of the testamentary provision in her favor cannot be passed upon and decided in the probate proceedings but in some other proceedings because the only purpose of the probate of a Will is to establish conclusively as against everyone that a Will was executed with the formalities required by law and that the testator has the mental capacity to execute the same.

GR:

In probate proceedings, the court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will.

It is elementary that a probate decree settles all questions concerning capacity of the testator and the proper execution and witnessing of his last Will and testament, irrespective of whether its provisions are valid and enforceable or otherwise. (Fernandez v. Dimagiba, 21 SCRA 428)

Probate is one thing; the validity of the testamentary provisions is another. The first decides the execution of the document and the testamentary capacity of the testator; the second relates to descent and distribution

TAKE NOTE!

Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Will.

In Nuguid v. Nuguid (17 SCRA 449) cited by the trial court, the testator instituted the petitioner as universal heir and completely preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of this nature, no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically, would be null and void.

The prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against the making of a donation between persons who are living in adultery or concubinage. It is the donation which becomes void. The giver cannot give even assuming that the recipient may receive. 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.