G.R. No.

L-20234 December 23, 1964

PAULA DE LA CERNA, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
MANUELA REBACA POTOT, ET AL., !" T#E #ONORABLE COURT O$
APPEAL%, respondents.
Philip M. Alo and Crispin M. Menchavez for petitioners.
Nicolas Jumapao for respondents.
RE&E%, '.B.L., J.:
Appeal by Paula de la Cerna and others from a decision of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division
(C.A.-G.. !o. "#$%#-& reversin' that of the Court of (irst )nstance of Cebu (Civ. Case !o. -#*+,&
and orderin' the dismissal of an action for partition.
-he factual bac.'round appears in the follo/in' portion of the decision of the Court
of Appeals (Petition, Annex A, pp. "-0&1
)t appears that on 2ay ,, +,#,, the spouses, 3ernabe de la Serna and Gervasia ebaca,
executed a 4oint last /ill and testament in the local dialect /hereby they /illed that 5our t/o
parcels of land ac6uired durin' our marria'e to'ether /ith all improvements thereon shall be
'iven to 2anuela ebaca, our niece, /hom /e have nurtured since childhood, because God
did not 'ive us any child in our union, 2anuela ebaca bein' married to !icolas Potot5, and
that 5/hile each of the testators is yet livin', he or she /ill continue to en4oy the fruits of the
t/o lands aforementioned5, the said t/o parcels of land bein' covered by -ax !o. 0%$% and
-ax !o. %%$$, both situated in sitio 3ucao, barrio 7u'o, municipality of 3orbon, province of
Cebu. 3ernabe dela Serna died on Au'ust #8, +,#,, and the aforesaid /ill /as submitted to
probate by said Gervasia and 2anuela before the Court of (irst )nstance of Cebu /hich,
after due publication as re6uired by la/ and there bein' no opposition, heard the evidence,
and, by 9rder of 9ctober #+, +,#,: in Special Proceedin's !o. 0,,, 5declara le'ali;ado el
documento <xhibit A como el testamento y ultima voluntad del finado 3ernabe de la Serna
con derecho por parte du su viuda superstite Gervasia ebaca y otra testadora al propio
tiempo se'un el <xhibit A de 'o;ar 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 lo'ataria universal 2anuela ebaca de Potot previa
prestacion por parte de la misma de una fian;a en la sum de P=88.88 para responder de
cuales6uiera reclamaciones 6ue se presentare contra los bienes del finado 3ernabe de la
Serna de los a>os desde esta fecha5 (Act <sp. 0,,, -estamentaria (inado 3ernabe de la
Serna& ?pon the death of Gervasia ebaca on 9ctober +0, +,=", another petition for the
probate of the same /ill insofar as Gervasia /as concerned /as filed on !ovember %, +,=",
bein' Special Proceedin's !o. +8+%- of the same Court of (irst )nstance of Cebu, but for
failure of the petitioner, 2anuela . Potot and her attorney, 2anuel Potot to appear, for the
hearin' of said petition, the case /as dismissed on 2arch #8, +,=0 Spec. Proc. !o. +8+%-,
)n the matter of the Probate of the @ill of Gervasia ebaca&.
-he Court of (irst )nstance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and void, for
bein' executed contrary to the prohibition of 4oint /ills in the Civil Code (Art. %%,, Civil Code of +**,
and Art. *+*, Civil Code of the Philippines&: but on appeal by the testamentary heir, the Court of
Appeals reversed, on the 'round that the decree of probate in +,#, /as issued by a court of probate
4urisdiction and conclusive on the due execution of the testament. (urther, the Court of Appeals
declared that1
... . )t is true the la/ (Art. %%,, old Civil Code: Art. *+*, ne/ Civil Code&. prohibits the ma.in'
of a /ill 4ointly by t/o or more persons either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of
a third person. Ao/ever, this form of /ill has lon' been sanctioned by use, and the same
has continued to be used: and /hen, as in the present case, one such 4oint last /ill and
testament has been admitted to probate by final order of a Court of competent 4urisdiction,
there seems to be no alternative except to 'ive effect to the provisions thereof that are not
contrary to la/, as /as done in the case of Macrohon vs. Saavedra, =+ Phil. "%$, /herein
ourSupreme Court 'ave effect to the provisions of the 4oint /ill therein mentioned, sayin',
5assumin' that the 4oint /ill in 6uestion is valid.5
@hence this appeal by the heirs intestate of the deceased husband, 3ernabe de la Cerna.
-he appealed decision correctly held that the final decree of probate, entered in +,#, by the Court of
(irst )nstance of Cebu (/hen the testator, 3ernabe de la Cerna, died&, has conclusive effect as to his
last /ill and testament despite the fact that even then the Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of
4oint /ills, /hether in favor of the 4oint testators, reciprocally, or in favor of a third party (Art. %%,, old
Civil Code&. -he error thus committed by the probate court /as an error of la/, that should have
been corrected by appeal, but /hich did not affect the 4urisdiction of the probate court, nor the
conclusive effect of its final decision, ho/ever erroneous. A final 4ud'ment rendered on a petition for
the probate of a /ill is bindin' upon the /hole /orld (2analo vs. Paredes, 0$ Phil. ,#*: )n re <states
of Bohnson, #, Phil. +=%&: and public policy and sound practice demand that at the ris. of occasional
errors 4ud'ment of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by la/. Interest rei
publicae ut finis set litium (Dy Cay vs. Crossfield, #* Phil, ="+, and other cases cited in " 2oran,
Comments on the ules of Court (+,%# <d., p. #""&.
Petitioners, as heirs and successors of the late 3ernabe de la Cerna, are concluded by the +,#,
decree admittin' his /ill to probate. -he contention that bein' void the /ill cannot be validated,
overloo.s that the ultimate decision on @hether an act is valid or void rests /ith the courts, and here
they have spo.en /ith finality /hen the /ill /as probated in +,#,. 9n this court, the dismissal of
their action for partition /as correct.
3ut the Court of Appeals should have ta.en into account also, to avoid future misunderstandin', that
the probate decree in +,*, could only affect the share of the deceased husband, 3ernabe de la
Cerna. )t could not include the disposition of the share of the /ife, Gervasia ebaca, /ho /as then
still alive, and over /hose interest in the con4u'al properties the probate court ac6uired no
4urisdiction, precisely because her estate could not then be in issue. 3e it remembered that prior to
the ne/ Civil Code, a /ill could not be probated durin' the testatorCs lifetime.
)t follo/s that the validity of the 4oint /ill, in so far as the estate of the /ife /as concerned, must be,
on her death, reexamined and ad4udicated de novo, since a 4oint /ill is considered a separate /ill of
each testator. -hus re'arded, the holdin' of the court of (irst )nstance of Cebu that the 4oint /ill is
one prohibited by la/ /as correct as to the participation of the deceased Gervasia ebaca in the
properties in 6uestion, for the reasons extensively discussed in our decision in Bilbao vs. Bilbao, *$
Phil. +00, that explained the previous holdin' in Macrohon vs. Saavedra, =+ Phil. "%$.
-herefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia ebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs
intestate, and not exclusively to the testamentary heir, unless some other valid /ill in her favor is
sho/n to exist, or unless she be the only heir intestate of said Gervasia.
)t is unnecessary to emphasi;e that the fact that 4oint /ills should be in common usa'e could not
ma.e them valid /hen our Civil Codes consistently invalidated them, because la/s are only
repealed by other subse6uent la/s, and no usa'e to the contrary may prevail a'ainst their
observance (Art. =, Civ. Code of +**,: Art. $, Civil Code of the Philippines of +,=8&.
@)-A -A< (9<G9)!G 29D)()CA-)9!, the 4ud'ment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.. !o.
"#$%#- is affirmed. !o Costs.