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 OF THE CASE:
1. Martin Jugo died on 1974 and he left a will wherein he instituted Sofia
Nepomuceno as the sole and only executor. It was also provided therein that he
was married to Rufina Gomez with whom he had 3 children.
2. Petitioner (Sofia) filed for the probate of the will but the legal wife and her
children opposed alleging that the will was procured through improper and undue
influence and that there was an admission of concubinage with the petitioner.
3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground of the testator's admission of
cohabitation, hence making the will invalid on its face. The Court of Appeals
reversed and held that the will is valid except the devise in favor of the petitioner
which is null and void in violation of Art. 739 and 1028.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court can pass on the intrinsic validity of a will.
RULING: Yes, as an exception. But the general rule is that the court's area of inquiry is
limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the will. This general
rule is however not inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the
probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and may pass
upon certain provisions of the will. The will itself admitted on its face the relationship
between the testator and the petitioner.
The will was validly executed in accordance with law but the court didn't find it to serve a
practical purpose to remand the nullified provision in a separate action for that purpose
only since in the probate of a will, the court does not ordinarily look into the intrinsic
validity of its provisions.
The devisee is invalid by virtue of Art. 739 which voids a donation made between
persons guilty of adultery/concubinage at the time of the donations. Under Art, 1028 it is
also prohibited.
NOTES. Where circumstances demand that intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions be passed upon even before the extrinsic validity of will is resolved, probate
court should meet the issue. (Cayetano vs. Leonidas, 129 SCRA 522.)
Will should not be denied legality based on dubious grounds. (Maninang vs, Court of
Appeals 114 SCRA 478.)

Generally, the probate of a will is mandatory. The law enjoins the probate of the will and
public requires it, because unless the will is probated and notice thereof given to the
whole word, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will maybe rendered
nugatory. (Id.)
The law on the formal requirements of a will should be liberally construed. While
perfection in drafting is desirable, unsubstantial departures should be ignored. (Perez
vs. Rosal, 118 SCRA 195.)
~ Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 206, No. L-62952 October 9, 1985