0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
70 tayangan2 halaman
Pete Roxas de Jesus married Salve Barican in 1960 and they had three children together. In 1977, Pete divorced Salve in the US and married Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus, though he did not become a US citizen until 1988. When Pete died in 1994, his will named Maria as his sole heir and disinherited Salve and their children. The court ruled the will was invalid because Pete's marriage to Maria was bigamous since his divorce from Salve was not valid under Philippine law at the time. As Pete and Maria were in an illegal concubinage relationship, any testamentary provisions for Maria were void under the Civil Code.
Pete Roxas de Jesus married Salve Barican in 1960 and they had three children together. In 1977, Pete divorced Salve in the US and married Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus, though he did not become a US citizen until 1988. When Pete died in 1994, his will named Maria as his sole heir and disinherited Salve and their children. The court ruled the will was invalid because Pete's marriage to Maria was bigamous since his divorce from Salve was not valid under Philippine law at the time. As Pete and Maria were in an illegal concubinage relationship, any testamentary provisions for Maria were void under the Civil Code.
Pete Roxas de Jesus married Salve Barican in 1960 and they had three children together. In 1977, Pete divorced Salve in the US and married Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus, though he did not become a US citizen until 1988. When Pete died in 1994, his will named Maria as his sole heir and disinherited Salve and their children. The court ruled the will was invalid because Pete's marriage to Maria was bigamous since his divorce from Salve was not valid under Philippine law at the time. As Pete and Maria were in an illegal concubinage relationship, any testamentary provisions for Maria were void under the Civil Code.
JESUS v. SALVE BARICAN DE JESUS G.R. No. 168733. March 27, 2006 Reyes, R.
Facts of the Case:
Pete Roxas de Jesus married respondent Salve Barican on 4
September 1960 with three children named Francis Gilbert, Maria Jocelyn, and Jennifer, all co-respondents in this case. Sometime in May 1977, Pete emigrated to the United States of America. In December of 1977, he obtained a divorce decree against Salve and married petitioner, Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus, in the state of Nevada. Notably, however, he only became a citizen of the United States in 1988. He died in Daly City, California, on 4 December 1994. In his will, the decedent instituted petitioner as his sole heir and disinherited the respondents. After trial, the probate court held that even as the will is extrinsically valid, it is intrinsically void for containing illegal dispositions and institution of an heir. 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 RTC on account of the illegal dispositions and heir institution.
Issue of the Case:
Whether the will containing the disinheritance is void for
containing illegal dispositions and institution of an heir.
Ruling of the Court:
Petitioner 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 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. 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. 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.