Dacanay v. Florendo (No. L-2071 | Sept.

19, 1950)

Facts:
Isabel Florendo and Tirso Dacanay executed a joint and reciprocal will on Oct. 20, 1940.
Isabel died. In a special proceeding in the CFI of La Union, Tirso sought to probate their joint and
reciprocal will, which provides that whoever of the spouses, joint testators, shall survive the other,
shall inherit all the properties of the latter, with an agreement as to how the surviving spouse shall
dispose of the properties in case of his or her demise.
The relatives of the deceased Isabel V. Florendo opposed the probate of said will on various
statutory grounds.
After receiving from counsels written arguments but before hearing the evidence, the trial court
issued an order dismissing the petition on the ground that the will is null and void ab initio for
having been executed in violation of Article 669 of the Civil Code (prohibition against the
execution of joint wills).
Tirso Dacanay appealed. He argues thet Art. 669 of the Civil Code is repealed by Act No. 190,
Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for and regulates the extrinsic formalities of wills.
Dacanay further contends that whether two wills should be executed conjointly or separately is
but a matter of extrinsic formality.

Issue: WON the joint and reciprocal will executed by Isabel Florence and Tirso Dacanay is null and void
ab initio YES

Held:
The matter has already been decided in In re Will of Victor Bilbao. Wherein the spouses Victor
Bilbao and Ramona Navarro executed a joint will, which provides that all their respective private
properties and conjugal properties shall be transmitted to either of them, who may survive the
other. This will was denied probate by virtue of Art. 669 of the Civil Code. Justice Montemayor of
the Supreme Court reasoned that Art. 669 is not repealed by Section 614 and 618 of the Code of
Civil Procedure because a number of cases decided by the Court wherein several articles of the
Civil Code regarding wills have not only been referred to but have also been applied side by side
with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Art. 669 has not been repealed expressly and
it is not incompatible with the Code of Civil Procedure.
The reason for the prohibition on the execution of joint wills, especially as regards husband and
wife, is that when a will is made jointly or in the same instrument, the spouse who is more
aggressive, stronger in will or character and dominant is liable to dictate the terms of the will for
his or her own benefit or for that of third persons whom he or she desires to favor.
And, where the will is not only joint but reciprocal, either one of the spouses who may happen to be
unscrupulous, wicked, faithless or desperate, knowing as he or she does the terms of the will
whereby the whole property of the spouses both conjugal and paraphernal goes to the survivor,
may be tempted to kill or dispose of the other.
Several writers (Justice Willard, Sinco, Capistrano, Judge Camus) is of the opinion that Art. 669 is
still in force. It has also been reproduced word for word in Art. 818 of the New Civil Code. The
implication is that the Philippine Legislature that passed this Act and approved the New Civil
Code, including the members of the Code Commission who prepared it, are of the opinion that
the provisions of Art. 669 of the old Civil Code are not incompatible with those of the Code of Civil
Procedure.

Notes: How is the prohibition on joint wills is an exception to the application of foreign law?
Balane:
General Rule: Apply Article 17 (lex loci celebrecionis), which provides that the forms and solemnities
of wills is governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.
Exception: Article 818. Joint wills executed by Filipinos are void, regardless of the place of execution.
A joint will is void, even when executed by Filipinos in a foreign country, and such foreign
country authorizes joint wills.