[G.R. No. 168733.

March 27, 2006]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR 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 JOVELYN DE JESUS AND JENIFER
DE JESUS

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 27, 2006

G.R. No. 168733 (In the Matter of the Petition for 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 Jovelyn De Jesus and Jenifer de Jesus)

This treats of the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner after this Court had denied both her
Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari and first Motion for Reconsideration[1] for raising factual issues and
cralaw

for a lack of sufficient showing that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error.

Aside from the fact the instant motion is dismissible for being a prohibited pleading,[2] through it, petitioner
cralaw

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 one legal question. Moreover, even on the merits, the motion
must be denied.

This Court does not concern itself with factual issues unless the jurisprudentially established exceptions are
extant;[3] in this case, they are not. The legal issue, which we now take under consideration being a significant
cralaw

question of law has to be addressed to end this controversy once and for all. However, such issue is
unmeritorious.

The facts are straightforward. Pete Roxas de Jesus (Pete) married respondent Salve Barican on 4 September
1960.[4] Their union produced three children named Francis Gilbert, Maria Jocelyn, and Jennifer, all surnamed
cralaw

de Jesus and all co-respondents in this case. Sometime in May 1977, Pete emigrated to the United States of
America.[5] In December of 1977, he obtained a divorce decree against Salve[6] and married petitioner, Maria
cralaw cralaw

Teresa Lazatin de Jesus, in the state of Nevada.[7] Notably, however, he only became a citizen of the United
cralaw

States in 1988.[8] He died in Daly City, California, on 4 December 1994.[9]

cralaw cralaw

On 3 March 1995, petitioner instituted with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, a petition for the
probate of the holographic will of the decedent, entitled "In the matter of the Petition for 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 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 and institution of an heir.[10] cralaw

In its Decision[11] dated 31 January 2005, the Court of Appeals held that the decedent was not yet a citizen
cralaw

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 court a 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.

On appeal to this Court, both the Petition for Review and Motion for Reconsideration were denied. Despite the
unseemly circumstance in which it is presented, as earlier intimated we deem the sole question of law in this
Second Motion for Reconsideration worthy of disquisition nonetheless unworthy of favorable action.
Petitioner's claim to the entire estate of the decedent having failed, she now argues that since the lower courts
upheld the intrinsic validity of the will, the testamentary provision therein in her favor should be given effect
even if only to the extent that it does not affect the legitime of the 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 her to at least the free portion of the decedent's estate.

The argument is untenable. Under Article 739[12] of the Civil Code, donations made between persons in a
cralaw

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] Since the courts below have made the factual finding that
cralaw

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.[14] Thus, in a case for the probate of a will where the testator bequeathed to his bigamous
cralaw

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.[15]
cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Second Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. Let Entry of Judgment be made
in due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court