Nepomuceno v.

CA Digests
Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
1. Martin Hugo died on 1974 and he left a will wherein he instituted Sofia Nepomuceno as the sole and only
eecutor. !t was also pro"ided therein that he was married to #ufina $ome% with whom he had & children.
'. (etitioner )Sofia* filed for the pro+ate of the will +ut the legal wife and her children opposed alleging that
the will was procured through improper and undue influence and that there was an admission of
concu+inage with the petitioner.
&. ,he lower court denied the pro+ate on the ground of the testator-s admission of coha+itation. hence
ma/ing the will in"alid on its face. ,he 0ourt of 1ppeals re"ersed and held that the will is "alid ecept the
de"ise in fa"or of the petitioner which is null and "oid in "iolation of 1rt. 7&9 and 12'3.
Issue: Whether or not the court can pass on the intrinsic validity of a will
#45!N$: 6es. as an eception. 7ut the general rule is that the court-s area of in8uiry is limited to the an
eamination and resolution of the etrinsic "alidity of the will. ,his general rule is howe"er not inflei+le and
a+solute. $i"en eceptional circumstances. the pro+ate court is not powerless to do what the situation
constrains it to do and may pass upon certain pro"isions of the will. ,he will itself admitted on its face the
relationship +etween the testator and the petitioner.
,he will was "alidly eecuted in accordance with law +ut the court didn-t find it to ser"e a practical purpose
to remand the nullified pro"ision in a separate action for that purpose only since in the pro+ate of a will. the
court does not ordinarily loo/ into the intrinsic "alidity of its pro"isions.
,he de"isee is in"alid +y "irtue of 1rt. 7&9 which "oids a donation made +etween persons guilty of
adultery9concu+inage at the time of the donations. 4nder 1rt. 12'3 it is also prohi+ited.