Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2071)
Petitioner
Tirso Dacanay sought probate of a joint and reciprocal will executed on October 20, 1940, which provided that the spouse who survived the other would inherit all the properties of the decedent, together with agreements as to disposition in the event of the survivor’s subsequent death.
Respondent / Oppositors
Relatives of Isabel V. Florendo opposed probate, asserting statutory defects and specifically relying on Article 669 of the Civil Code, which prohibits two or more persons from making a will conjointly in the same instrument.
Relevant Facts
- The will was executed jointly by husband and wife on October 20, 1940.
- After Isabel’s death, Tirso petitioned to probate the instrument as a joint and reciprocal will.
- Oppositors raised objections under Article 669, Civil Code.
- Before taking evidence, the trial court required written arguments from counsel on whether Article 669 prohibited probate of the instrument.
- The trial court dismissed the petition, holding the will null and void ab initio for contravening Article 669.
Procedural Posture
The proponent (Tirso Dacanay) appealed the trial court’s dismissal to the Supreme Court, contesting the trial court’s interpretation and application of Article 669 and arguing that Article 669 had been effectively superseded or repealed by provisions of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) governing wills.
Legal Issue
Whether Article 669 of the Civil Code—which provides that “Two or more persons cannot make a will conjointly or in the same instrument, either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person”—prohibits probate of the jointly executed will and whether that article has been repealed or superseded by Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure).
Appellant’s Argument
Appellant contended that the prohibition in Article 669 addresses extrinsic formalities and that Act No. 190 (in particular sections cited by appellant) regulates the formalities of wills and therefore repeals or supersedes Article 669, permitting joint wills.
Supreme Court Analysis — Precedent and Statutory Interaction
The Court relied on its recent precedent in In re Will of Victor Bilbao (cited in the decision) where a jointly executed will was denied probate and the Court rejected the contention that the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) repealed Chapter I, Title III of the Civil Code concerning wills. The Supreme Court in that prior decision (opinion by Justice Montemayor) observed:
- Several Civil Code provisions regarding wills have been applied alongside Code of Civil Procedure provisions, demonstrating that the procedural code did not completely supplant substantive Civil Code rules on wills.
- Article 669 serves important substantive public policy purposes and is neither unwise nor contrary to public policy.
- Practical concerns justify Article 669: joint execution by spouses may enable a dominant spouse to dictate testamentary terms to the other; reciprocal provisions raising a survivor’s inheritance of all properties can create temptation for wrongful acts (including, as the opinion states, the risk that an unscrupulous surviving spouse be tempted to kill or dispose of the other).
- Commentators and authorities referenced in the decision (Justice Willard’s notes on the Civil Code; Sinco and Cagistrano; Judge Camus) were cited as supporting the continued force of Article 669.
Supreme Court Analysis — Repeal and Legislative Intent
The Court rejected the argument that Act No. 190 repealed Article 669. It found no express repeal and held the provisions to be compatible: procedural provisions concerning execution and probative formalities do not abrogate substantive prohibitions in the Civil Code. Furthermore, the Court noted that Article 669 was reproduced verbatim in Article 818 of the New Civil Code (Republic Act No. 336), implying legislative recognition and continuity of the prohibition.
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the petition to probate the joint will. The joint and reciprocal will executed by the spouses was held null and void ab initio for having been executed in violation of Article 669 of the Civil Code. Costs were awarded against the appellant.
Rationale and Policy Considerations
The decision
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-2071)
Procedural Posture and Court
- Decision reported at 87 Phil. 324, G.R. No. L-2071, dated September 19, 1950.
- Decision authored by Justice Ozaeta.
- Matter is a special proceeding in the Court of First Instance of La Union to probate a joint and reciprocal will.
- The judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition for probate was appealed to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the order appealed from, with costs against the appellant; Justices Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes concurred.
Facts
- On October 20, 1940, spouses Isabel V. Florendo and Tirso Dacanay executed a joint and reciprocal will.
- The will provided in substance that whichever spouse survived the other would inherit all of the deceased spouse’s properties, and contained an agreement as to how the surviving spouse should dispose of the properties upon his or her demise.
- Isabel V. Florendo died, and her surviving spouse, Tirso Dacanay, sought to probate the joint and reciprocal will.
- Relatives of the deceased Isabel V. Florendo opposed the probate of the will on various statutory grounds (the source does not specify the exact statutory grounds).
Trial Court Proceedings
- Before hearing evidence, the trial court required and received written arguments from counsel for both parties on whether the joint and reciprocal will could be probated in view of Article 669 of the Civil Code.
- After considering the written arguments, the trial court issued an order dismissing the petition for probate.
- The trial court held that the joint and reciprocal will was null and void ab initio because it had been executed in violation of Article 669 of the Civil Code.
Legal Question Presented
- Whether the joint and reciprocal will executed by the spouses may be probated in view of Article 669 of the Civil Code.
- Whether Article 669 of the Civil Code has been repealed by Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure) such that conjoint execution of wills would be permissible as a matter of extrinsic formality.
Relevant Statute
- Article 669 of the Civil Code (as quoted in the source):
- "Art. 669. Two or more persons cannot make a will conjointly or in the same instrument , either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person."
Views of the Appellant (Proponent of the Will)
- The appellant (proponent of the will) contended that the prohibition in Article 669 is directed against execution of a joint will—i.e., two or more testators expressing their wills in a single document and by one act—rather than against mutual or reciprocal wills which may be executed separately.
- On the premise that Article 669 proscribes only a joint will in a single instrument, the appellant further argued that Article 669 had been repealed by Act No. 190.
- The appellant asserted that Act No. 190 provides for and regulates extrinsic formalities of wills, and that whether two wills are executed conjointly or separately is merely a matter of extrinsic formality governed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Opponents’ Position
- The relatives of the deceased opposed probate of the joint will on