G.R. No. L-62952 October 9, 1985
SOFIA J. NEPOMUCENO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RUFINA GOMEZ, OSCAR JUGO ANG, CARMELITA JUGO, respondents.

FACTS

Martin Jugo died leaving a duly probated will. In the will, he admitted he was legally married to respondent Rufina Gomez, with whom he had two legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita Jugo. He further stated that since 1952, he had been estranged from his wife and had been living with petitioner Sofia J. Nepomuceno as husband and wife, having even contracted a marriage with her in 1952 despite his existing marriage. The will devised his estate to his forced heirs (his legal wife and children) and the free portion to Nepomuceno. The legal wife and children opposed probate. The trial court denied probate, finding the intrinsic provisions invalid on their face due to the admitted concubinage.
The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of probate, declaring the will itself validly executed. However, it declared the specific devise in favor of Nepomuceno null and void pursuant to Article 739 of the Civil Code, which voids donations between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage. The court then ordered the properties intended for Nepomuceno to pass via intestacy to the legal wife and children. Nepomuceno filed this petition, arguing the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling on the intrinsic validity of the devise during probate proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted in excess of its jurisdiction by declaring the testamentary devise to Nepomuceno null and void during the probate proceedings.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not exceed its jurisdiction. The general rule is that probate courts primarily determine the extrinsic validity of a will—its due execution and the testator’s testamentary capacity—without adjudicating on the intrinsic validity of specific provisions. However, an exception exists when the will on its face demonstrates the invalidity of a testamentary disposition. In this case, the will itself contained the testator’s explicit admission that he was legally married to Rufina Gomez and that he had been living in concubinage with Nepomuceno since 1952. This factual admission, uncontroverted within the four corners of the will, squarely brought the devise within the prohibition of Article 739 of the Civil Code, which renders void any donation between persons living in adultery or concubinage.
The prohibition under Article 739 is a matter of public policy. When the invalidating cause is apparent from the will itself, as it was here, the probate court is not precluded from striking down the void provision to prevent an idle ceremony. Allowing a clearly void devise to pass through probate only to be nullified later in a separate action would be inefficient and contrary to judicial economy. The Court found Nepomuceno’s claim of ignorance regarding the testator’s existing marriage to be inherently incredible, further supporting the application of Article 739. Thus, the appellate court correctly affirmed the will’s formal validity while correctly invalidating the specific devise to the concubine based on the incontrovertible facts admitted in the instrument itself.