ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 168733. March 27, 2006]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL OF PETE ROXAS DE JESUS, a.k.a. PETER ROXAS DE JESUS OR PEDRO DE JESUS, MARIA TERESA LAZATIN DE JESUS v. SALVE BARICAN DE JESUS, FRANCIS GILBERT DE JESUS, MARIA JOVELYN DE JESUS AND JENIFER DE JESUS

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 27, 2006

G.R. No. 168733 (In the Matter of the Petition for the Probate of the Will of Pete Roxas de Jesus, a.k.a. Peter Roxas de Jesus or Pedro De Jesus, Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus v. Salve Barican de Jesus, Francis Gilbert de Jesus, Maria Jovelyn De Jesus and Jenifer de Jesus)

This treats of the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner after this Court had denied both her Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari and first Motion for Reconsideration [1] cralaw for raising factual issues and for a lack of sufficient showing that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error.

Aside from the fact the instant motion is dismissible for being a prohibited pleading, [2] cralaw through it, petitioner merely reiterates arguments she had already set forth in prior pleadings filed with this Court, although she has now condensed her issues to one factual and one legal question. Moreover, even on the merits, the motion must be denied.

This Court does not concern itself with factual issues unless the jurisprudentially established exceptions are extant; [3] cralaw in this case, they are not. The legal issue, which we now take under consideration being a significant question of law has to be addressed to end this controversy once and for all. However, such issue is unmeritorious.

The facts are straightforward. Pete Roxas de Jesus (Pete) married respondent Salve Barican on 4 September 1960. [4] cralaw Their union produced three children named Francis Gilbert, Maria Jocelyn, and Jennifer, all surnamed de Jesus and all co-respondents in this case. Sometime in May 1977, Pete emigrated to the United States of America. [5] cralaw In December of 1977, he obtained a divorce decree against Salve [6] cralaw and married petitioner, Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus, in the state of Nevada. [7] cralaw Notably, however, he only became a citizen of the United States in 1988. [8] cralaw He died in Daly City, California, on 4 December 1994. [9] cralaw

On 3 March 1995, petitioner instituted with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, a petition for the probate of the holographic will of the decedent, entitled "In the matter of the Petition for the Probate of the Will of Pete Roxas de Jesus, a.k.a. Peter Roxas de Jesus or Pedro de Jesus; Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus v. Salve Barican de Jesus, Francis Gilbert de Jesus, Maria Jocelyn de Jesus, and Jennifer de Jesus." In his will, the decedent instituted petitioner as his sole heir and disinherited the respondents. After trial, the probate court rendered a Decision dated 26 October 2001 holding that even as the will is extrinsically valid, i.e., duly executed in accordance with the requisites and solemnities prescribed by law, it is intrinsically void for containing illegal dispositions and institution of an heir. [10] cralaw

In its Decision [11] cralaw dated 31 January 2005, the Court of Appeals held that the decedent was not yet a citizen of the United States at the time he obtained the divorce decree against Salve. Being a Filipino, petitioner could not at the time validly obtain a divorce decree. Since the first marriage still subsisted at the time the decedent married petitioner, the second marriage is bigamous and, therefore, void. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the court a quo dismissing the petition for probate on account of the illegal dispositions and heir institution. In a Resolution dated 23 June 2005, the appellate court denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

On appeal to this Court, both the Petition for Review and Motion for Reconsideration were denied. Despite the unseemly circumstance in which it is presented, as earlier intimated we deem the sole question of law in this Second Motion for Reconsideration worthy of disquisition nonetheless unworthy of favorable action.

Petitioner's claim to the entire estate of the decedent having failed, she now argues that since the lower courts upheld the intrinsic validity of the will, the testamentary provision therein in her favor should be given effect even if only to the extent that it does not affect the legitime of the respondents. She argues that the pronouncement of her marriage with the decedent as bigamous does not detract from the fact that the testator had intended to leave something for her, entitling her to at least the free portion of the decedent's estate.

The argument is untenable. Under Article 739 [12] cralaw of the Civil Code, donations made between persons in a state of adultery or concubinage are void. Article 1028 of the same code mandates that the same prohibition be similarly applied to testamentary provisions. [13] cralaw Since the courts below have made the factual finding that the marriage between petitioner and the decedent was bigamous, necessarily, petitioner and decedent are considered as having been in a state of concubinage in the context of Article 739. Significantly, a conviction for adultery or concubinage need not be had before the disabilities mentioned in paragraph (1) of Article 739 may effectuate. [14] cralaw Thus, in a case for the probate of a will where the testator bequeathed to his bigamous wife the free portion of his estate, this Court ruled, inter alia , that the disposition is void under Article 739 in relation to Article 1028 of the Civil Code. [15] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Second Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. Let Entry of Judgment be made in due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Through its Resolutions dated 19 September 2005 and 21 November 2005, respectively.

[2] cralaw REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 52, Sec. 2.

[3] cralaw Bunag, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101749, 10 July 1992, 211 SCRA 440, 447.

[4] cralaw Rollo , p. 115.

[5] cralaw Id. at 105.

[6] cralaw Id. at 83.

[7] cralaw Id. at 25.

[8] cralaw Id. at 127.

[9] cralaw Id. at 54.

[10] cralaw Id. at 64.

[11] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Jose C. Reyer, Jr.

[12] cralaw Article 739 of the Civil Code provides:

The following donations shall be void:

(1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the lime of the donation;

(2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense, in consideration thereof;

(3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants, by reason of his office.

In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action.

[13] cralaw Article 1028. The prohibitions mentioned in Article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions.

[14] cralaw Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd., v. Ebrado , G.R. No. L-44059, 28 October 1977, 80 SCRA 181, 188.

[15] cralaw Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62952, 9 October 1985, 139 SCRA 206.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com