41. TIRSO DACANAY V.
PEDRO FLORENDO
GR No. L-2071, September 19, 1950
PARTIES INVOLVED:
PETITIONER: Testate Estate of Isabela Florendo: wife of Tirso
Dacanay
PETITIONER: Tirso Dacanay: Husband of deceased Isabela
Florendo
OPPOSITOR: Pedro Florendo, et al: Relatives of Isabela
Florendo
DOCTRINE: Prohibition of joint will is an exception to lex loci
contractus. Regardless of the place where it was executed, if
executed by a Filipino citizen, will be null and void in the
Philippines.
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 6691 of the Civil Code
(prohibition against the execution of joint wills).
 Tirso Dacanay appealed. He argues that 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the Civil Code is repealed by Act No. 190, Code of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 will is null and void – YES
1
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.
RATIO:
 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that Art. 669 is not repealed by Section 614 and 618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.
 Lastly, we find that this article 669 has been
reproduced word for word in article 818 of the New
Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386).
DI KO GETS UNG APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW DITO KASI
WALA NAMAN SA CASE 

PERO I THINK (aka nakita ko din online)

 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.
 RATIO (I think): Joint will, although appearing as a
formal requisite on surface, actually prohibits certain
terms