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

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.

 

 

Dela Cerna v. Potot, G.R. No. L-20234, December 23, 1964.

[REYES, J.B.L., J.]

FACTS

A joint will was executed by Bernabe dela Cerna and Gervasia Rebaca. Bernabe dela Cerna died on August 30, 1939, and the aforesaid will was probated on October 31, 1939. 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. The second probate was denied because the will was allegedly executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills.

 

ISSUE

Whether a joint will may be denied subsequent probate after it was admitted in prior probate proceedings.

 

RULING

NO. 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, as in the present case, the joint last will and testament has been admitted to probate by final order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, so that there seems to be no alternative except to give effect to the provisions thereof that are not contrary to law. It follows that the validity of the joint will, in so far as the estate of Gervasia was concerned, must be, on her death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator.