Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 113 views

    Disinheritance - de Jesus vs. de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    Jei Essa Almias
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Disinheritance - de Jesus vs. de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    Jei Essa Almias
    113 views2 pages
    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.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    Disinheritance - De Jesus vs. de Jesus

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    113 views2 pages

    Disinheritance - de Jesus vs. de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    Jei Essa Almias
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    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.

    You might also like