De la Cerna vs. Rebaca-Potot

A final decree of probate by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the validity and due execution of a will regarding the estate of the deceased testator, even if the will is a prohibited joint will; however, such a decree does not bind the estate of the other joint testator who was still alive at the time of the first probate, as the court lacks jurisdiction over the estate of a living person.

In 1939, a married couple executed a single document as their joint last will and testament, bequeathing two parcels of land to their niece. This occurred during the effectivity of the Civil Code of 1889, which, like the subsequent Civil Code of 1950, strictly prohibited joint wills. The dispute arose decades later when the heirs of the husband challenged the validity of the testamentary disposition after both spouses had passed away.

• On May 9, 1939, spouses Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervasia Rebaca executed a joint last will and testament in their local dialect.
• The will provided that two parcels of conjugal land would be given to their niece, Manuela Rebaca Potot, while the surviving spouse would enjoy the fruits of the land during their lifetime.
• Bernabe died on August 30, 1939; subsequently, the will was submitted for probate and the Court of First Instance of Cebu legalized it on October 31, 1939.
• No appeal was taken from the 1939 probate decree, and the court ordered the summary distribution of Bernabe's estate in favor of Manuela.
• Gervasia died on October 14, 1952; a petition to probate the same will specifically for her estate was filed but dismissed in 1954 for failure to appear.
• The petitioners, as intestate heirs of Bernabe, filed a complaint for partition, asserting that the joint will was void and could not transfer ownership.
• The trial court agreed with the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed this, holding that the 1939 probate decree was a final judgment on the will's validity.

• The joint will is non-existent and void ab initio because it violates the express prohibition against joint wills found in both the Old and New Civil Codes.
• A void act cannot be validated or ratified by a court decree, and therefore the 1939 probate should not prevent the heirs from claiming their intestate shares.
• The properties should be partitioned among the legal heirs because the testamentary disposition to Manuela Rebaca Potot was legally ineffective.

• The 1939 decree of probate is a judgment in rem that is binding upon the whole world and conclusive as to the due execution and validity of the testament.
• Any error committed by the probate court in 1939 was an error of law that should have been corrected by a timely appeal, which the petitioners failed to do.
• Public policy and the principle of res judicata require that the judgment of the probate court remain final and undisturbed after the lapse of several decades.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the 1939 decree of probate, despite being based on an error of law regarding joint wills, is conclusive and binding under the doctrine of res judicata.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a joint will probated upon the death of one spouse is valid and binding as to the estate of the surviving spouse who was still alive at the time of the first probate.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that the 1939 probate decree is final and conclusive as to the estate of Bernabe de la Cerna; while the probate court erred in validating a joint will, it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and the failure to appeal the decree rendered it a finality that binds the petitioners.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that the 1939 probate decree could not affect the share of Gervasia Rebaca because she was still alive at that time; a probate court only acquires jurisdiction over the estate of a deceased person, and since a joint will is treated as a separate will for each testator, its validity regarding Gervasia's interest must be adjudicated de novo upon her death, where it must be declared void.

• Res Judicata in Probate — A final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world and is conclusive as to the due execution of the will, even if the decision contains an error of law that should have been corrected by appeal.
• Prohibition of Joint Wills — Under Article 669 of the Civil Code of 1889 and Article 818 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, two or more persons are prohibited from making a will jointly for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person.
• Jurisdiction over the Estate of a Living Person — A probate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the interest or estate of a testator who is still alive; therefore, a probate decree for one joint testator cannot validate the testamentary dispositions of the survivor.
• Interest rei publicae ut finis sit litium — This maxim reflects the public policy that there must be an end to litigation, justifying the finality of court judgments even at the risk of occasional errors.

• "A final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world... 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."
• "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 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."

• Manalo vs. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938 — Cited to establish that probate decrees are proceedings in rem binding on the whole world.
• In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156 — Referenced to support the conclusive effect of a final probate decree.
• Dy Cay vs. Crossfield, 38 Phil. 521 — Cited regarding the necessity of finality in litigation for the public interest.
• Macrohon vs. Saavedra, 51 Phil. 267 — Distinguished and discussed regarding how the Court previously gave effect to provisions of a joint will that were not contrary to law.
• Bilbao vs. Bilbao, 87 Phil. 144 — Cited to explain the legal rationale behind the prohibition of joint wills in Philippine jurisdiction.

• Article 669, Civil Code of 1889 — The original statutory prohibition against joint wills applicable at the time the will was executed and first probated.
• Article 818, Civil Code of the Philippines — The modern statutory provision reiterating the prohibition of joint wills.
• Article 5, Civil Code of 1889 / Article 7, Civil Code of 1950 — Cited to emphasize that laws are only repealed by subsequent laws and that usage or custom cannot prevail against the observance of the law.