MICIANO vs.

BRIMO 50 PHIL 867 FACTS: A will of an American testator provided that his estate should be disposed of in accordance with the Philippine law. The testator further provided that whoever would oppose his wishes that his estate should be distributed in accordance with Philippine laws would forfeit their inheritance HELD: Even if the testators wishes must be given paramount importance, if the wishes of the testator contravene a specific provision of law, then that provision in a will should not be given effect. A persons will is merely an instrument which is PERMITTED, so his right is not absolute. It should be subject to the provisions of the Philippine laws. The estate of a decedent shall be distributed in accordance with his national law. He cannot provide otherwise. The SC held that those who opposed would not forfeit their inheritance because that provision is not legal. 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: Spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint last will and testament whereby they willed that their two parcels of land acquired during their marriage together with all improvements thereon shall be given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece. Bernabe died and the will was probated in 1939 after due publication as required by law and there being no opposition. Upon the death of Gervasia Rebaca, another petition for the probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed by Manuela but the court dismissed it for failure of Manuela to appear. Paula de la Cerna questioned for the nullity of the joint will of Bernabe being prohibited in the Philippine law. The Court of First Instance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and void, for being executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills in the Civil Code but on appeal by the testamentary heir, the Court of Appeals 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. Hence, this appeal. ISSUES: 1. 2. RULING: The appealed decision correctly held that the final decree of probate, entered in 1939 by the Court of First Instance of Cebu (when the testator, Bernabe de la Cerna, died), has conclusive effect as to his last will and testament despite the fact that even then the Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of joint wills, whether in favor of the joint testators, reciprocally, or in favor of a third party (Art. 669, old Civil Code). A final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world. The probate decree in 1989 could only affect the share of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la Cerna. 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. Be it remembered that prior to the new Civil Code, a will could not be probated during the testator's lifetime. It follows that the validity of the joint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, Whether or not an error of law affects the conclusive effect of its decision. Whether or not the joint will is valid as to the share of Gervasia who died later than Bernabe.

must be, on her death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator. Therefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs intestate, and not exclusively to the testamentary heir, unless some other valid will in her favor is shown to exist, or unless she be the only heir intestate of said Gervasia. Marcela Rodelas v. Amparo Aranza G.R. No. L-58509; December 7, 1982 Facts: Petitioner-appellant filed a petition with the CFI-Rizal for the probate of the holo will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. The petition was opposed by appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes, Expedita Bonilla Frias and Ephraim Bonilla. The grounds of their opposition are as follows: 1. Appellant was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will by failing to produce the will within twenty days of the death of the testator. 2. The alleged copy of the will did not contain a disposition of property after death and was not intended to take effect. 3. The original must be presented and not the copy thereof. 4. The deceased did not leave any will. The appellees also moved for the dismissal of the petition for the probate of the will. The appellees' motions were denied. They filed a Motion for recon. Motion for Recon was approved. Appellant's motion for recon was denied. Appellant appealed the case to the CA which certified the case to the SC on hte ground that the appeal does not involve questions of fact. Issue: Whether or not a holo will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy. Ruling: Yes. a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator. In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity." But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.