Digest Manuel Reyes v CA

Manuel Reyes v. Court of Appeals and Julio Vivares G.R. No. 12099; Oto!er "0# 199$ %ats& On January 3, 1992, Torcuato Torcuato Reyes Reyes executed his last will and testament. He bequeathed all his ro to his wi!e "suncion #Onin$% and his brother Jose. The will consisted o! two a$es and was si$ned by Torcuato Reyes in the resence o! three witnesses& "ntonio 'eloso, (loria )orromeo, and *oledad (autan. +riate resondent Julio ". 'iares was desi$nated the executor and in his de!ault or incaacity, his son Roch "lan *. 'iar 'iares. es. +R -led a etition !or robate o! the will. The reco$nied natural children o! Torcuato with /stebana (alolo and 0elsa "$ae -led an oosition. The court declared that the will was exec accordin$ w the !orma rescribed by law. Howeer, it ruled that "suncion was neer married to the deceased #Hence, diso made in will is inalid%. Julio 'iares -led an aeals aea ls be!ore the 0" with the alle$ation alle$ation that the oositos !ailed to re resent sent ay com. eidence taht "suncion was le$ally married to another erson. The 0" armed the trial courts decision but with the modi-cation that diso in !aor o! Onin$ was alid. Rulin'& "s a $en $ener eral al rul rule, e, cou courts rts in r roba obate te r roce oceedi edin$s n$s ar are e li limit mited ed to as ass s onl only y uo uon n the extrinsic alidity o! the will sou$ht to be robated. Thus, the court merely inquires on its due execution, whether or not it comlies with the !ormalities rescribed by law, and the testamentary caacity o! the testator. 4t does not determine nor een by imlication re5u r e5ud$e d$e the al alidi idity ty or e ecac cacy y o! the wil wills ls r roi oisio sions. ns. The int intrin rinsic sic al alidi idity ty is not considered since the consideration thereo! usually comes only a!ter the will has been roed and allowed. There are, howeer, notable circumstances wherein the intrinsic alidity was -rst determined as when the de!ect o! the will is aarent on its !ace and the robate o! the will may become a useless ceremony i! it is intrinsically inalid. The intr in trin insi sic c a ali lidi dity ty o! a wi will ll ma may y be a ass ssed ed u uon on be beca caus use e 6 6ra ract ctic ical al co consi nside dera rati tion ons6 s6 demanded it as when there is reterition o! heirs or the testamentary roisions are o!  doubt!ul le$ality. le$ality. +arenthetically, +arenthetically, the rule on robate is not in7exible and absolute. a bsolute. 8nder excetional circumstances, the robate court is not owerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and ass uon certain roisions o! the will. The lower court was not ased to rule uon the intrinsic alidity or ecacy o! the roisions o! the will. "s a result, the declaration o! the testator that "suncion 6Onin$6 Reyes was his wi!e did not hae to be scrutinied durin$ the robate roceedin$s. The roriety o! the institution o!  Onin$ Oni n$ Reye eyes s as one o! the de deise isees esle$ le$ate atees es alr alread eady y in inol oled ed inq inquir uiry y on the wi will lls s intrinsic alidity and which need not be inquired uon by the robate court.