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. The will was not executed and witnessed in accordance with law; 2. that the testator had no mental capacity to execute the will; 3. that it was obtained by means of undue pressure and influence; and 4. that the said will was not the will of the testator. Pertinently, the Bernabe’s 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.
Testate Estate of the Late Bernabe RodriguezJuly 1, 1948Jugo,
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. The will was not executed and witnessed
in accordance with law; 2. that the testator had no mental capacity
to execute the will; 3. that it was obtained by means of undue
pressure and influence; and 4. 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.
