G.R. No. 12099 October 30, 1997
MANUEL G. REYES, MILA G. REYES, DANILO G. REYES, LYN AGAPE, ESTEBANA GALOLO, and CELSA AGAPE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIO VIVARES, respondents.

FACTS

On January 3, 1992, Torcuato J. Reyes executed his last will and testament, bequeathing properties to his wife, Asuncion “Oning” R. Reyes. The will was signed in the presence of three witnesses. Upon Torcuato’s death on May 12, 1992, private respondent Julio A. Vivares, the designated executor, filed a petition for probate. The recognized natural children of Torcuato Reyes (petitioners) filed an opposition, alleging the will was not executed according to legal formalities and that Asuncion exerted undue influence. They further contended that Asuncion could not be a compulsory heir because she was legally married to Lupo Ebarle during her cohabitation with Torcuato, making their relationship adulterous. The Regional Trial Court admitted the will to probate but declared paragraph II (a) and (b) — the bequests to Asuncion — null and void for being contrary to law and morals. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the probate but modified the decision, declaring paragraph II and its subparagraphs valid. Petitioners then filed this petition for review, contending the findings were contrary to law and evidence, and attached a marriage certificate between Asuncion and Lupo Ebarle not presented during trial.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring paragraph II of the will, bequeathing properties to Asuncion “Oning” R. Reyes, valid despite allegations that her marriage to the testator was void due to a pre-existing marriage or an adulterous relationship.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that in probate proceedings, the court’s primary duty is to rule on the extrinsic validity of the will (i.e., due execution, compliance with formalities, testamentary capacity). The intrinsic validity of its provisions is generally not determined unless the defect is apparent on the face of the will or under exceptional circumstances. In this case, the will merely stated Asuncion was the testator’s wife, with no admission of an illicit relationship. The trial court erroneously relied on uncorroborated testimonial evidence to conclude the relationship was adulterous. The petitioners’ failure to present competent evidence, like the marriage certificate, during the probate trial constituted a waiver. The belated submission of the certificate on appeal could not be entertained, as factual findings of the appellate court are binding unless shown to be contrary to the record. The declaration of the testator in his will that Asuncion was his wife was competent evidence of marriage, and the oppositors’ evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of marriage. The case was distinguished from Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, where the testator explicitly admitted an illicit relationship within the will itself.