PAULA DE LA CERNA, ET AL., petitioners, vs.

MANUELA REBACA POTOT, ET AL., and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,

respondents.
G.R. No. L-20234
December 23, 1964

FACTS:
On May 19, 1939, Spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint last will
and testament where they willed that their 2 parcels of land together with all improvements thereon
be given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece, whom they have nutured since childhood. That while
each of the testators is yet living, she will continue to enjoy the fruits of the two lands.

Bernabe died on August 30, 1939, and the aforesaid will was submitted to probate by said Gervasia
and Manuela before the CFI of Cebu. By order of Oct. 31, 1939, the Court admitted for probate
the said will but only for the part of Bernabe.

When Gervasia died, another petition for probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was
concerned was instituted by Manuela, but because she and her attorney failed to appear in court,
the petition was dismissed. When the same was heard, the CFI 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).

CA 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.

ISSUE:
W/N the will may be probated

HELD:
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision and held that once a decree of probate becomes final
in accordance with the rules of procedure, it is res judicata. Admittedly the probate of the will in
1939 was erroneous, however, because it was probated by a court of competent jurisdiction it has
conclusive effect and a final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding
upon the whole world. There was an error on the court but the decree has now become final.

Nevertheless, the probate in 1939 only affected the share of Bernabe and could not include the
disposition of the share of his wife which was still alive then, her properties were still not within
the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, joint will being prohibited by law, the validity of the will with
respect to her, must be on her death, be re-examined and adjudicated de novo — since a joint will
is considered a separate will of each testator.

The undivided interest of the wife should pass upon her death to her intestate heirs and not to the
testamentary heir. Thus as to the disposition of the wife, the will cannot be given effect.