576

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De la Cerna vs. RebacaPotot

No. L20234. December 23, 1964.

PAULA DE LA CERNA, ET AL., petitioners, vs.
MANUELA REBACA POTOT, ET AL., and THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Judgments Probate courts Error of law does not affect
jurisdiction, of probate court nor conclusive effect of its decision.
An error of law committed in admitting a joint will to probate
does not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court nor the
conclusive effect of its final decision.
Same Same Probate decree of joint will affects only share of
deceased spouse.A final probate decree of a joint will of husband
and wife affects only the share of the deceased spouse and cannot
include the disposition of said joint will, in so far as the estate of
the latter spouse is concerned, must be, on her death, reexamined
and adjudicated de novo.
Wills Effects of validity of joint will as to share of wife who
dies later than the husband.Where a husband and wife executed
a joint will and upon the death of the husband said will was
admitted to probate by a final decree of the court although
erroneous, and the wife dies later, it is held that said first decree
of probate affects only the estate of the husband but cannot affect
the estate of the wife, considering that a joint will is a separate
will of each testator and a joint will being prohibited by law, the
estate of the wife should pass upon her death to her intestate
heirs and not to the testamentary heir, unless some other valid
will is shown to exist in favor of the latter or unless the
testamentary heir is the only heir of said wife.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Philip M. Alo and Crispin M. Menchavez for

petitioners.
Nicolas Jumapao for respondents.
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
577

VOL. 12, DECEMBER 23, 1964

577

De la Cerna vs. RebacaPotot

of Cebu (Civ. Case No. R3819) 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. 24):
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 de la 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 documento y habido consideracion de la 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 reclamaciones que se presentare

contra los bienes del finado Bernabe de la Serna de los aos 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. 1016R 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. 1016R, 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,
578

578

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De la Cerna vs. RebacaPotot

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:
x x x. 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 Estate 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).
579

VOL. 12, DECEMBER 23, 1964

579

De la Cerna vs. RebacaPotot

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 1939 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 testators 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
580

580

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go Uan vs. Galang

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 CAG.R. No. 23763R
is affirmed. No Costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion,
Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
_____________

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.