Probate Petition: Pete Roxas

[G.R. No. 168733. March 27, 2006] disinherited the respondents.
disinherited the respondents. After trial, the probate court rendered a Decision dated 26 October
2001 holding that even as the will is extrinsically valid, i.e., duly executed in accordance with the
requisites and solemnities prescribed by law, it is intrinsically void for containing illegal dispositions
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL OF PETE ROXAS DE
and institution of an heir.[10]cralaw
JESUS, a.k.a. PETER ROXAS DE JESUS OR PEDRO DE JESUS, MARIA TERESA LAZATIN DE
JESUS v. SALVE BARICAN DE JESUS, FRANCIS GILBERT DE JESUS, MARIA JOVELYN DE
JESUS AND JENIFER DE JESUS In its Decision[11]cralaw dated 31 January 2005, 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
Third Division
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 court a
Sirs/Mesdames: quo dismissing the petition for probate on account of the illegal dispositions and heir institution. In
a Resolution dated 23 June 2005, the appellate court denied petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration.
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 27, 2006
On appeal to this Court, both the Petition for Review and Motion for Reconsideration were denied.
G.R. No. 168733 (In the Matter of the Petition for the Probate of the Will of Pete Roxas de Jesus, Despite the unseemly circumstance in which it is presented, as earlier intimated we deem the sole
a.k.a. Peter Roxas de Jesus or Pedro De Jesus, Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus v. Salve Barican de question of law in this Second Motion for Reconsideration worthy of disquisition nonetheless
Jesus, Francis Gilbert de Jesus, Maria Jovelyn De Jesus and Jenifer de Jesus) unworthy of favorable action.
This treats of the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner after this Court had denied Petitioner's claim to the entire estate of the decedent having failed, she now argues that since the
both her Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari and first Motion for Reconsideration[1]cralaw for lower courts upheld the intrinsic validity of the will, the testamentary provision therein in her favor
raising factual issues and for a lack of sufficient showing that the Court of Appeals had committed should be given effect even if only to the extent that it does not affect the legitime of the
any reversible error. respondents. She 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
Aside from the fact the instant motion is dismissible for being a prohibited her to at least the free portion of the decedent's estate.
pleading,[2]cralaw through it, petitioner merely reiterates arguments she had already set forth in
prior pleadings filed with this Court, although she has now condensed her issues to one factual and The argument is untenable. Under Article 739[12]cralaw of the Civil Code, donations made between
one legal question. Moreover, even on the merits, the motion must be denied. 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.[13]cralaw Since the
This Court does not concern itself with factual issues unless the jurisprudentially established courts below have made the factual finding that the marriage between petitioner and the decedent
exceptions are extant;[3]cralaw in this case, they are not. The legal issue, which we now take was bigamous, necessarily, petitioner and decedent are considered as having been in a state of
under consideration being a significant question of law has to be addressed to end this controversy concubinage in the context of Article 739. Significantly, a conviction for adultery or concubinage
once and for all. However, such issue is unmeritorious. need not be had before the disabilities mentioned in paragraph (1) of Article 739 may
effectuate.[14]cralaw 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
The facts are straightforward. Pete Roxas de Jesus (Pete) married respondent Salve Barican on 4 under Article 739 in relation to Article 1028 of the Civil Code.[15]cralaw
September 1960.[4]cralaw Their union produced three children named Francis Gilbert, Maria
Jocelyn, and Jennifer, all surnamed de Jesus and all co-respondents in this case. Sometime in May
1977, Pete emigrated to the United States of America.[5]cralaw In December of 1977, he obtained WHEREFORE, the Second Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. Let Entry of
a divorce decree against Salve[6]cralaw and married petitioner, Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus, in Judgment be made in due course.
the state of Nevada.[7]cralaw Notably, however, he only became a citizen of the United States in
1988.[8]cralaw He died in Daly City, California, on 4 December 1994.[9]cralaw Very truly yours,
On 3 March 1995, petitioner instituted with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, a petition (Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
for the probate of the holographic will of the decedent, entitled "In the matter of the Petition for Clerk of Court
the Probate of the Will of Pete Roxas de Jesus, a.k.a. Peter Roxas de Jesus or Pedro de Jesus;
Maria Teresa Lazatin de Jesus v. Salve Barican de Jesus, Francis Gilbert de Jesus, Maria Jocelyn de
Jesus, and Jennifer de Jesus." In his will, the decedent instituted petitioner as his sole heir and

Probate Petition: Pete Roxas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Probate Petition: Pete Roxas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Probate Petition: Pete Roxas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 168733. March 27, 2006] disinherited the respondents.

You might also like