Facts:

The case involves the Testate Estate of Isabel V. Florendo, deceased, with Tirso Dacanay as the petitioner and appellant, and Pedro V. Florendo et al. as the oppositors and appellees. The proceedings commenced in the Court of First Instance of La Union, where Tirso Dacanay sought to probate a joint and reciprocal will executed by him and his spouse, Isabel V. Florendo, on October 20, 1940. The will stipulated that whichever spouse survived the other would inherit all properties, along with an agreement on how the surviving spouse would dispose of the properties upon their demise. Following Isabel's death, her relatives opposed the probate of the will on various statutory grounds. Before the trial court could hear evidence, it required written arguments from both parties regarding the will's probatability in light of Article 669 of the Civil Code. The court ultimately dismissed the petition for probate, declaring the will null and void ab initio for violating Article 6...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioner and Appellant: Tirso Dacanay (surviving spouse of Isabel V. Florendo).
   • Oppositors and Appellees: Pedro V. Florendo et al. (relatives of the deceased Isabel V. Florendo).

2. Subject Matter:

   • A joint and reciprocal will executed by the spouses Isabel V. Florendo and Tirso Dacanay on October 20, 1940.

3. Provisions of the Will:

   • The will stipulated that the surviving spouse would inherit all properties of the deceased spouse, with an agreement on how the surviving spouse would dispose of the properties upon their demise.

4. Procedural Background:

   • Isabel V. Florendo died, and Tirso Dacanay sought to probate the joint will.
   • The relatives of Isabel V. Florendo opposed the probate, arguing that the will violated Article 669 of the Civil Code.
   • The trial court dismissed the petition for probate, declaring the will null and void ab initio for violating Article 669 of the Civil Code.

5. Legal Issue Raised:

   • Whether the joint and reciprocal will executed by the spouses is valid under Article 669 of the Civil Code.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Prohibition Under Article 669 of the Civil Code:

   • Article 669 explicitly prohibits two or more persons from making a will conjointly or in the same instrument, whether for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person.
   • The prohibition is directed against the execution of a joint will, where two or more testators express their wills in a single document and by one act.

2. Distinction Between Joint Wills and Mutual Wills:

   • The Court clarified that Article 669 prohibits joint wills, not mutual or reciprocal wills, which may be separately executed.

3. Repeal of Article 669 by Act No. 190:

   • The appellant argued that Article 669 had been repealed by Act No. 190, which regulates the extrinsic formalities of wills.
   • The Court rejected this argument, holding that Article 669 has not been repealed, either expressly or impliedly, by Act No. 190.
   • The Court cited previous jurisprudence, including In re Will of Victor Bilbao, which upheld the validity of Article 669 and its compatibility with the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Policy Considerations:

   • The Court emphasized the wisdom of Article 669, particularly in preventing potential abuse in joint wills.
   • The provision safeguards against situations where a dominant or unscrupulous spouse may dictate the terms of the will to their advantage or even resort to harming the other spouse.

5. Reiteration in the New Civil Code:

   • The Court noted that Article 669 of the old Civil Code was reproduced verbatim in Article 818 of the New Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386), indicating the continued relevance and validity of the prohibition.

6. Conclusion:

   • The joint and reciprocal will executed by Tirso Dacanay and Isabel V. Florendo is null and void ab initio for violating Article 669 of the Civil Code.