FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL OF PETE ROXAS DE

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.