Scribd
Upload
79 views1 page

Paula de La Cerna, Et Al vs. Manuela Rebaca Potot, Et Al., and Ca Facts

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a joint will executed by spouses Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervasia Rebaca. The key points are: 1. Bernabe and Gervasia executed a joint will leaving their property to their niece, Manuela Rebaca. After Bernabe's death in 1939, the will was declared valid. However, after Gervasia's death in 1952, the court declared the joint will invalid under the Civil Code. 2. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the will for Bernabe based on the 1939 ruling, but found the will invalid for Gervasia as it had to be reexamined separately. 3. Joint wills were

Uploaded by

jetzon2022
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views1 page

Paula de La Cerna, Et Al vs. Manuela Rebaca Potot, Et Al., and Ca Facts

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a joint will executed by spouses Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervasia Rebaca. The key points are: 1. Bernabe and Gervasia executed a joint will leaving their property to their niece, Manuela Rebaca. After Bernabe's death in 1939, the will was declared valid. However, after Gervasia's death in 1952, the court declared the joint will invalid under the Civil Code. 2. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the will for Bernabe based on the 1939 ruling, but found the will invalid for Gervasia as it had to be reexamined separately. 3. Joint wills were

Uploaded by

jetzon2022
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

EN BANC G.R. No. L-20234 December 23, 1964 REYES, J.B.L., J.

:

PAULA DE LA CERNA, ET AL vs. MANUELA REBACA POTOT, ET AL., and CA

FACTS:
Spouses Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervasia Rebaca executed a joint last will and testament in
their local dialect 2 parcels of land with all the improvements thereon to their niece, Manuela
Rebaca. The couple were childless. As a condition on the joint will, the fruits of the 2 parcels shall be
enjoyed by either the testators while he or she is yet living.
Upon the death of Bernabe in 1939 the will was submitted for probate before the CFI of
Cebu which declared said will to be legal and valid. When Gervasia died in 1952, another petition
for the probate of the same will was submitted before the same CFI. However, the testament was
declared null and void for being executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills in Article 669 of
the Old Civil Code and Article 818 of the New Civil Code.
On appeal, the CA reversed the ruling of the Cebu CFI on the ground that the decree of
probate in 1939 was conclusive on the due execution of the testament. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. WON the joint will is legal and valid in so far as Bernabe is concerned
2. WON the joint will is legal and valid in so far as Gervasia is concerned
HELD:
On Issue No. 1
Yes.
The final decree of probate entered in 1939 by the Cebu CFI has conclusive effect as to the
last will and testament of Bernabe despite the fact that 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. The
error committed by the probate court was an error of law that should have been corrected by
appeal.
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. Thus, the dismissal of their action for partition was correct.
On Issue No. 2
No.
The present subject matter of the probate is the last will and testament of Gervasia who
died much later than her husband. Hence, in so far as the estate of the wife is concerned, the joint
will must be reexamined and adjudicated de novo since the joint will is considered a separate will of
each testator. Thus regarded, the holding of the CFI of Cebu that the joint will is one prohibited by
law was correct as to the participation of the deceased Gervasia in the properties in question.
Therefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia 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 is affirmed. No
Costs.

You might also like