Testate Estate of the Late Bernabe Rodriguez

July 1, 1948
Jugo, J.
Short Version:
Bernabe Rodriguez, made a will instituting his wife, Martina Araniego, as
his universal heir, while Martina made a will instituting Bernabe her
universal heir. The validity was challenged, as it was supposedly a joint will.
The SC disagreed. They are separate instruments. Will probated.
Facts:
Martina Araniego filed, a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan
on July 19, 1946for the probate of the will of Bernabe Rodriguez who died
on July 14, 1946, at Meycawayan, Bulacan. Antonio, Trinidad and Dolores,
all surnamed Rodriguez, brother and nieces, respectively, of the deceased
and the heirs of Francisco Javier Rodriguez, another brother of the
deceased, filed an opposition to said petition, alleging that:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The will was not executed and witnessed in accordance with law;
that the testator had no mental capacity to execute the will;
that it was obtained by means of undue pressure and influence; and
that the said will was not the will of the testator.

Pertinently, the Bernabes will named his wife Martina his universal heir,
while Martina named Bernabe her universal heir. Thus, the argument was
made that the wills were joint wills.
The CFI admitted the will to probate, appointed Martina administratrix.
Hence this appeal.
Issue:
WON the will is a joint will, and therefore, void. (No.)
Ratio:
It is argued that the wills violate A 609 of the Civil Code, which provides
that "Two or more persons cannot make a will conjointly or in the same
instr-iment, either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third
person."

However, the law prohibits two or more persons to make a will

conjointly or mancomunadamente or in the same instrument. The wills in
this case are not conjoint but are different instruments; consequently, the
above provisions do not apply to them.
As to the other arguments, the name of Bernabe was placed by
Iniguez. Even if he could not remember how, this was still valid. Just
because Bernabe was weak does not mean he was incapable of making a
will. Finally, there was no proof of undue influence.
Judgment affirmed.
Gabe.