Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 280 views

    04 de La Cerna Vs Potot - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    OM Molins
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision reversing the lower court's ruling that a joint will executed by spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca was null and void. While joint wills were prohibited by the Civil Code, the 1939 probate court decree admitting the will was final and conclusive despite being erroneous. The heirs of Bernabe de la Serna were bound by that final probate decision, even if the will was potentially void, as the court had spoken with finality on its validity at that time. Though joint wills were invalidated by law, long usage could not override the Civil Code provisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    04 de La Cerna Vs Potot - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    OM Molins
    280 views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision reversing the lower court's ruling that a joint will executed by spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca was null and void. While joint wills were prohibited by the Civil Code, the 1939 probate court decree admitting the will was final and conclusive despite being erroneous. The heirs of Bernabe de la Serna were bound by that final probate decision, even if the will was potentially void, as the court had spoken with finality on its validity at that time. Though joint wills were invalidated by law, long usage could not override the Civil Code provisions.

    Original Description:

    Wills and Succession

    Original Title

    04 de La Cerna vs Potot - Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision reversing the lower court's ruling that a joint will executed by spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca was null and void. While joint wills were prohibited by the Civil Code, the 1939 probate court decree admitting the will was final and conclusive despite being erroneous. The heirs of Bernabe de la Serna were bound by that final probate decision, even if the will was potentially void, as the court had spoken with finality on its validity at that time. Though joint wills were invalidated by law, long usage could not override the Civil Code provisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    280 views1 page

    04 de La Cerna Vs Potot - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    OM Molins
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision reversing the lower court's ruling that a joint will executed by spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca was null and void. While joint wills were prohibited by the Civil Code, the 1939 probate court decree admitting the will was final and conclusive despite being erroneous. The heirs of Bernabe de la Serna were bound by that final probate decision, even if the will was potentially void, as the court had spoken with finality on its validity at that time. Though joint wills were invalidated by law, long usage could not override the Civil Code provisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-20234      December 23, 1964

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

    Facts:

    On May 9, 1939, the spouses, Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint last will and testament
    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." 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 declared the document legalized as the testament and last will of the late 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.

    The Court of First Instance 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. The Court of Appeals also
    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 the 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."

    Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct in reversing the order of the Court of First Instance that the joint
    testament by the spouses is null and void.

    Held:

    Yes. 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.

    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.

    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).

    You might also like