PAULA DE LA CERNA, ET AL.

, petitioners,
vs.
MANUELA REBACA POTOT, ET AL., and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Philip M. Alo and Crispin M. Menchavez for petitioners.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appeal by Paula de la Cerna and others from a decision of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division (C.A.-G.R.
No. 23763-R) reversing that of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Civ. Case No. R-3819) and ordering the
dismissal of an action for partition.

The factual background appears in the following portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals (Petition,
Annex A, pp. 2-4):

It appears that on May 9, 1939, the spouses, Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a
joint last will and testament in the local dialect whereby they willed that "our two parcels of land
acquired during our marriage together with all improvements thereon shall be given to Manuela
Rebaca, our niece, whom we have nurtured since childhood, because God did not give us any
child in our union, Manuela Rebaca being married to Nicolas Potot", and that "while each of the
testators is yet living, he or she will continue to enjoy the fruits of the two lands
aforementioned", the said two parcels of land being covered by Tax No. 4676 and Tax No. 6677,
both situated in sitio Bucao, barrio Lugo, municipality of Borbon, province of Cebu. Bernabe dela
Serna died on August 30, 1939, and the aforesaid will was submitted to probate by said Gervasia
and Manuela before the Court of First Instance of Cebu which, after due publication as required
by law and there being no opposition, heard the evidence, and, by Order of October 31, 1939; in
Special Proceedings No. 499, "declara legalizado el documento Exhibit A como el testamento y
ultima voluntad del finado Bernabe de la Serna con derecho por parte du su viuda superstite
Gervasia Rebaca y otra testadora al propio tiempo segun el Exhibit A de gozar de los frutos de los
terranos descritos en dicho documents; y habido consideracion de la cuantia de dichos bienes, se
decreta la distribucion sumaria de los mismos en favor de la logataria universal Manuela Rebaca
de Potot previa prestacion por parte de la misma de una fianza en la sum de P500.00 para
responder de cualesquiera reclamaciones que se presentare contra los bienes del finado Bernabe
de la Serna de los años desde esta fecha" (Act Esp. 499, Testamentaria Finado Bernabe de la
Serna) Upon the death of Gervasia Rebaca on October 14, 1952, another petition for the probate
of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed on November 6, 1952, being Special
Proceedings No. 1016-R of the same Court of First Instance of Cebu, but for failure of the
petitioner, Manuela R. Potot and her attorney, Manuel Potot to appear, for the hearing of said
petition, the case was dismissed on March 30, 1954 Spec. Proc. No. 1016-R, In the matter of the
Probate of the Will of Gervasia Rebaca).

The Court of First Instance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and void, for being
executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills in the Civil Code (Art. 669, Civil Code of 1889 and Art.
818, Civil Code of the Philippines); but on appeal by the testamentary heir, the Court of Appeals reversed,
on the ground that the decree of probate in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction and
conclusive on the due execution of the testament. Further, the Court of Appeals declared that:
 ... . It is true the law (Art. 669, old Civil Code; Art. 818, new Civil Code). prohibits the making of a
will jointly by two or more persons either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third
person. However, this form of will has long been sanctioned by use, and the same has continued
to be used; and when, as in the present case, one such joint last will and testament has been
admitted to probate by final order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, there seems to be no
alternative except to give effect to the provisions thereof that are not contrary to law, as was
done in the case of Macrohon vs. Saavedra, 51 Phil. 267, wherein our Supreme Court gave effect to
the provisions of the joint will therein mentioned, saying, "assuming that the joint will in question
is valid."

Whence this appeal by the heirs intestate of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la Cerna.

The appealed decision correctly held that the final decree of probate, entered in 1939 by the Court of First
Instance of Cebu (when the testator, Bernabe de la Cerna, died), has conclusive effect as to his last will
and testament despite the fact that even then the Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of joint wills,
whether in favor of the joint testators, reciprocally, or in favor of a third party (Art. 669, old Civil Code).
The error thus committed by the probate court was an error of law, that should have been corrected by
appeal, but which did not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, nor the conclusive effect of its final
decision, however erroneous. A final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding
upon the whole world (Manalo vs. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; In re Estates of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156); and public
policy and sound practice demand that at the risk of occasional errors judgment of courts should become
final at some definite date fixed by law. Interest rei publicae ut finis set litium (Dy Cay vs. Crossfield, 38 Phil,
521, and other cases cited in 2 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court (1963 Ed., p. 322).

Petitioners, as heirs and successors of the late Bernabe de la Cerna, are concluded by the 1939 decree
admitting his will to probate. The contention that being void the will cannot be validated, overlooks that
the ultimate decision on Whether an act is valid or void rests with the courts, and here they have spoken
with finality when the will was probated in 1939. On this court, the dismissal of their action for partition
was correct.

But the Court of Appeals should have taken into account also, to avoid future misunderstanding, that the
probate decree in 1989 could only affect the share of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la Cerna. It could
not include the disposition of the share of the wife, Gervasia Rebaca, who was then still alive, and over
whose interest in the conjugal properties the probate court acquired no jurisdiction, precisely because
her estate could not then be in issue. Be it remembered that prior to the new Civil Code, a will could not
be probated during the testator's lifetime.

It follows that the validity of the joint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, must be, on
her death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since a joint will is considered a separate will of each
testator. Thus regarded, the holding of the court of First Instance of Cebu that the joint will is one
prohibited by law was correct as to the participation of the deceased Gervasia Rebaca in the properties in
question, for the reasons extensively discussed in our decision in Bilbao vs. Bilbao, 87 Phil. 144, that
explained the previous holding in Macrohon vs. Saavedra, 51 Phil. 267.

Therefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs intestate,
and not exclusively to the testamentary heir, unless some other valid will in her favor is shown to exist, or
unless she be the only heir intestate of said Gervasia.
It is unnecessary to emphasize that the fact that joint wills should be in common usage could not make
them valid when our Civil Codes consistently invalidated them, because laws are only repealed by other
subsequent laws, and no usage to the contrary may prevail against their observance (Art. 5, Civ. Code of
1889; Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950).

WITH THE FOREGOING MODIFICATION, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 23763-R is
affirmed. No Costs.

Testate Estate of the late Bernabe Rodriguez, G.R. No. 1627-R, July 1, 1948.

20JUL

FACTS

Petitioner Araniego, widow of the deceased, filed a petition for probate of the latter’s will before the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Respondents opposed the petition. They contended that since the
deceased named Araniego as his universal heir and the latter having likewise named the deceased as her
universal heir, making them reciprocal beneficiaries of each other, both testators violated the prohibition
on joint wills under the Civil Code, and the probate must be denied.

ISSUE
Whether the wills executed by testators reciprocally making the other as beneficiary is a joint will
prohibited by law.

RULING

NO. Article 669 of the old Civil Code (Art. 818 of the new Civil Code) prohibits the making of a will jointly
by two or more persons either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. In other
words, it is making such will conjointly or in the same document that is prohibited. Here, the two
testators, who were husband and wife, instructed the other as universal heir in their respective wills, said
wills are not conjoint because they are made in different instruments. Hence, there is no joint will to speak
of and the prohibition in the Civil Code is inapplicable