Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE HONORABLE COURT OF Rufina and her children filed an opposition alleging inter alia that the
APPEALS, RUFINA GOMEZ, OSCAR JUGO ANG, CARMELITA execution of the will was procured by undue and improper influence on
JUGO. the part of the petitioner; that at the time of the execution of the will, the
testator was already very sick and that the petitioner having admitted
G.R. No. L-62952 ; October 9, 1985 her living in concubinage with the testator, she is wanting integrity and
thus letters testamentary should not be issued to her.
GUTIERREZ, JR., (ponente) The lower court denied the probate of the will on the ground that as the
testator admitted in his will to cohabiting with the petitioner, the will’s
FACTS: On July 16, 1974, Martin Jugo died leaving a duly executed admission to probate will be an idle exercise because on the face of
will. Under the will, the testator appointed Sofia Nepomuceno as his the will, the invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident. The appellate
sole and only executor of his estate. Further, the will expressly stated court declared the will to be valid except that the devise in favor of the
that he was legally married to Rufina Gomez by whom he had two petitioner is null and void.
legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita, but since 1952, he had been
estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with ISSUE: Whether or not the donation made by the testator in favor of
petitioner as husband and wife. In fact, on December 5, 1952, the herein petitioner was valid.
testator and Sofia were married in Tarlac before the Justice of the
Peace. The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife HELD: NO. There is no question from the records about the fact of a
Rufina and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the prior existing marriage when Martin Jugo lived together in an
free portion petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for probate of the ostensible marital relationship for 22 years until his death. It is also a
will. The legal wife, Rufina and her children filed an opposition. In fact that Martin Jugo and Sofia Nepomuceno contracted a marriage
1976, the lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that before the Justice of the Peace of Tarlac. The man was then 51 years
as the testator admitted in his will to cohabiting with the petitioner from old while the woman was 48. Nepomuceno contends that she acted in
December 1952 until his death on July 16, 1974, the Will's admission good faith for 22 years in the belief that she was legally married to the
to probate will be an idle exercise because on the face of the Will, the testator. The records do not sustain that she acted in good faith for 22
invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident.
years in the belief that she was legally married to the testator, since the
last will and testament itself expressly admits indubitably on its face the
The petitioner appealed to the respondent-appellate court. The meretricious relationship between the testator and petitioner, the
respondent court set aside the decision of the declaring the will to be devisee.
valid except the devise in favor of the petitioner pursuant to Article 739
in relation with Article 1028 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against the
making of a donation between persons who are living in adultery or
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner may validly inherit from the will. 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
RULING: No, the Supreme Court held that the will contained disposing the properties to a person with whom he had been living in
provisions which are dubious and because of the motion to withdraw concubinage.
the petition for probate the trial court acted correctly in passing upon
the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been Criminal conspiracy: To fall within this disqualification, the heir must be
established. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on given a bequest by the testator in consideration for the commission of
its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical
an offense. It must be stated in the will either expressly or inferred from
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed
the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.
upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue. The
denial of petitioner of not having any knowledge of the previous
marriage was held to lack credibility as it was inherently improbable for G.R. No. L-10722 February 18, 1916
being contrary to the experience in common life and ordinary instincts
which would prompt a person to question why a woman would not
bother to inquire if the man that she was going to marry was already DOLORES A. IGNACIO, plaintiff-appellee,
married to another, knowing that the testator already had children. The vs.
prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against the making of a FELISA MARTINEZ and JUAN MARTINEZ, defendants-appellants.
donation between persons who are living in adultery or concubinage. It
is the donation, which becomes void. The giver cannot give even Crispulo Martinez, the deceased husband of Dolores Arce Ignacio and
assuming that the recipient may receive. The very wordings of the Will father of the minor Arsenio Martinez, was a brother of Felisa Martinez
invalidate the legacy because the testator admitted he was disposing and uncle of Juan Martinez, the defendants. The plaintiff's ward and
the properties to a person with whom he had been living in the defendants were the owners in equal parts of the undivided real
concubinage. estate described in the complaint. Dolores Arce Ignacio, as the
guardian of her minor son, instituted this action for the purpose of
NEPOMUCENO v. COURT OF APPEALS having the property divided real estate described in the complaint.
Dolores Arce Ignacio, as the guardian of her minor son, instituted this
139 SCRA 206 action for the purpose of having the property divided and the one-third
part belonging to the minor turned over to her. Judgment was also
FACTS: Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. He left a asked against the defendant, Felisa Martinez, for one-third of the value
last Will and Testament where he named and appointed herein of the products of the land during the time the latter had been in the
petitioner Sofia Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of his exclusive possession of the same. The defendant, Felisa Martinez,
estate. It is clearly stated in the will that the testator was legally married alleged that she and her deceased husband bought Crispulo Martinez'
interest in the property in question in 1908. Judgment was entered by
to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, but
the court below in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, and the
since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and
defendant, Felisa Martinez, appealed.
had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. In fact, on
December 5, 1952, the testator Martin Jugo and the petitioner herein,
Sofia, were married on Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace. The That an adult heir may sell, assign or mortgage his undivided interest
testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina in the estate of his deceased parents, although he himself has legal
Gomez and his children his entire estate and the free portion thereof to heirs, there can be no question. (Ramirez vs. Bautista, 14 Phil. Rep.,
herein petitioner. 528.) So, therefore, our inquiry is limited to the question relating to the
validity of appellants' Exhibit No. 2 and the legal effect resulting
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last therefrom. This exhibit reads as follows:
will and testament of the deceased, but the legal wife of the testator
I, Crispulo Martinez y Alejandrino, a native and resident of questions of fact and held with her upon the question of law. Both are
the municipality of Calapan, Mindoro, P. I., do hereby before us for review.
declare:
Exhibit No. 2 is a contract executed with all the formalities of the law
(1) That the real and personal property, and the cattle which between Crispulo Martinez on the one side and Luciano Lopez and
are listed under my name in the land-assessment roll, form Felisa Martinez on the other. As such, it can only be annulled for the
the estate left by my deceased parents Leoncio Martinez same reasons as any other contract of like character. Felisa Martinez,
and Magdalena Alejandrino, and consequently, are now our the only one now living of the contracting parties, took charge of all the
common property and belong to me and my sister Felisa (by property in question in September, 1908. Although her husband was
our way rights) and to my nephew Juan Martinez (by right of living at the time, he was so ill that he was unable to attend to any
representation). business whatever, having died a few weeks thereafter.
Notwithstanding the fact that Crispulo Martinez did not die until 1911,
he had nothing to do with administration of this property, nor did he
(2) That the total value of the said property constituting our
declare the same for the purposes of taxation, nor receive any of the
inheritance, or the assessed value of the same amounts to
products, as he had done from the time of his father's death in 1899 up
(P2,700) two thousand, seven hundred pesos, Philippine
to the execution of the document in 1908. The property remained in the
currency, which, divided into three equal parts, makes the
peaceable possession of Felisa Martinez from the date of the
share of each one (900) nine hundred pesos.
execution of Exhibit No. 2 until the commencement of this action, a
period of nearly six years. The only testimony in the record which tends
(3) That, by my being in Manila pursuing a course of to show that the document was executed by Crispulo Martinez, on
studying in secondary instruction and law during the five account of the trouble then existing between him and his wife, and
years immediately preceding the execution of this document, without consideration, is that of the plaintiff, Dolores Arce Ignacio, with
I have spent the sum of (P2,500) two thousand, five hundred reference to the alleged conversation which took place between herself
pesos, which was paid by the married couple Luciano Lopez and her deceased husband, a few hours before he died, and Felisa
and Felisa Martinez, the said sum having been spent by me Martinez, and the fact that Crispulo Martinez was living at the time
in the following manner: separate from his wife and boy on account of the trouble which he had
had with his wife. On the other hand, the defendant, Felisa Martinez,
presented the duly executed and ratified document, showing the
Course of 1902 to 1903 (10 months), monthly board and liquidation of the accounts with the deceased Crispulo Martinez. Her
lodging at P45 own testimony, explaining in detail the entire transaction, shows the
peaceable possession of all the property for the time which we have
Course of 1903 to 19104 (10 months), monthly board and indicated, receipt of the products, and the tax declarations made by
lodging at P45 her. The deceased Crispulo Martinez, being a lawyer by profession,
knew what he was doing when he signed and ratified Exhibit No. 2,
Course of 1904 to 1905, whole year, at P50 and knew the legal effects which that document produced. The trial
court in declaring that Exhibit No. 2 was of no value, based its decision
Course of 1905 to 1906, whole year, at P50 largely upon the fact, as the court said, that Felisa Martinez did not
categorically deny the conversation above mentioned. Felisa Martinez'
1908 (8 months) at P50 whole defense in the court below and in this court is and in this court is
an absolute denial of that conversation. In making its findings of fact,
we think the lower court failed to give due weight to the notarial
document and the other documentary evidence presented. This
important fact takes the case out of the general ruled laid down by this
(4) That in consideration of these expenses, I hereby set court to the effect that the findings of fact made by a trial court will not
forth that I renounce totally the share that may belong to me, be reversed where the same is based upon contradictory testimony of
after the partition of the said property, and I assign the said witnesses. For these reasons we must reverse the court below upon
share to the aforementioned married couple Luciano Lopez the questions of fact and hold that Exhibit No. 2 was duly executed for
and Felisa Martinez, or to their lawful heirs. a valuable consideration.
All this I do freely and voluntarily, and affix my signature The trial court was of the opinion that the execution of the above
hereto in the presence of the witnesses who sign at the end quoted document was an attempt "to repudiate an inheritance" and
hereof, in Calapan, this 30th day of August, 1908. that the document does not produce this effect because it does not
meet the requirements of article 1008 of the Civil Code. In support of
this holding the court relied upon the language used in the fourth
CRISPULO MARTINEZ
paragraph. Crispulo Martinez stated therein that "in consideration of
these expense, I hereby set forth that I renounce totally the share that
may belong to me and assign the said share to Luciano Lopez and
Witnesses:
Felisa Martinez, or to their lawful heirs." Under the Civil Code,
DOMINGO ACEDERA.
repudiation of the inheritance is an act entirely voluntary and free,
SANTIAGO MENDOZA.
made without consideration. An heir cannot renounce his inheritance in
favor of a designated heir or heirs, or any other persons. (The
This document, after having been signed on the date stated, was duly substitute referred to in paragraph 3 of article 1912 is the person
ratified a notary public on December 22, 1908. Crispulo Martinez died designated by the testator.) Neither can an heir renounce or repudiate
on September 18, 1911. It is claimed by the plaintiff that Exhibit No. 2 his inheritance so as to relieve himself of all liability after he had
was signed and ratified by Crispulo Martinez without consideration at accepted the inheritance, without the benefit of an inventory, and had
the time when he was living with is sister, Felisa Martinez, separate received the products therefrom as such heir. Acts of mere
from his wife and son on account of bad feeling then existing between conservation or professional administration do not constitute an
them, and that on the very day that that date, he requested his wife, in acceptance of the inheritance.
the presence of Felisa to send for a person to make his will, as he
wished to annul Exhibit No. 2, and that Felisa then stated to him that it
In the instant case, Crispulo Martinez had, by taking possession of the
was not necessary for him to make his will for that purpose as she had
property, exercising act of dominion over it, and receiving products
already destroyed the document. It is further claimed that even
therefrom for a period of more than eight years, accepted the
admitting all else, Exhibit No. 2 does not have the legal effect of
inheritance without the benefit of an inventory. He "renounced" his
vesting title in the defendant Felisa and her deceased husband
interest in favor of designed persons, one of whom was not an heir of
because, "in view of the terms of this document it has the legal force of
his deceased parents, and for a valuable consideration. The word"
a repudiation of inheritance." The trial court found for the plaintiff on the
renounce," used in paragraph 4 of the document does not, under the
terms of the document, constitute must be considered together. Words,
phrases or clauses cannot be segregated and given a meaning which
is contrary to the terms of the entire document. "The whole contract
must be interpreted or read together in order to arrive at its true
meaning." (Barretto vs. Santa Marina, 26 Phil. Rep., 200.)
It having been clearly shown that Crispulo Martinez owed, on the 30th
day of August, 1908, Luciano Lopez and Felisa Martinez the sum of
P2,500, money loaned him while he was in school, and he being of
mature age, Exhibit No. 2 was, in truth and in law, an assignment by
Crispulo of his interest in the property in question to Felisa Martinez
and her husband in payment of his debt. This act is authorized by
article 1175 of the Civil Code.
Ocampo v. Santos