In short
Three articles close the chapter on testamentary ineffectiveness, and the first contradicts what almost everyone assumes. Article 1716 says that if the revoking will is itself revoked, the dispositions of the first are effective only when the testator so manifests expressly. That is: killing the second will does not resurrect the first. Silence leaves the first dead. If what you want on revoking the second is for the earlier one to hold again, you have to say so, because by default it does not come back. Article 1718 pushes the same way from another angle: the revocation produces its effect even if the persons instituted in the revoking will do not want to succeed the decedent or cannot do so. Read them together and the picture is stark: the second will can fail completely — revoked, or with its heirs renouncing or unable to inherit — and the first still does not return, unless the testator had said so. What then happens to the estate these articles do not answer. Between the two sits one that protects something that is not property. Article 1717 says the revocation of a will does not affect the validity or the effectiveness of the recognition of children. Both words are in the text: neither validity nor effectiveness. A recognition made inside a will survives the will that carried it, and is not lost by revoking. About other non-patrimonial dispositions the article says nothing, and neither does this guide.
What is it?
They are Articles 1716, 1717 and 1718 of the Civil Code of 2020: whether the earlier will revives when the revoking one is revoked, what always survives a revocation, and why revocation takes effect even if the revoking will fails.
Who can do it?
Anyone about to revoke a will having executed earlier ones, and any heir facing a chain of revoked wills.
Requirements
- If the revoking will is itself revoked, the first one’s dispositions are effective only when the testator expressly says so.Verified against the official source
- The revocation of a will does not affect the validity or the effectiveness of the recognition of children.Verified against the official source
- The revocation produces its effect even if those instituted in the revoking will do not want to succeed the decedent.Verified against the official source
- It produces it too even if they cannot do so.Verified against the official source
Documents you need
Cost
Step by step
Step 1: You revoked the will that revoked
Article 1716: the first one’s dispositions are effective only when the testator so manifests expressly.
Step 2: Silence leaves it dead
By default the first does not come back. If you want it back, it must be said.
Step 3: Revocation does not depend on the revoking will
Article 1718: it produces its effect even if those instituted in the revoking will do not want to succeed.
Step 4: Nor on their being able to inherit
The same article extends it to the case where they cannot do so.
Step 5: The two together
The second will may fail entirely and the first still does not return, absent the testator’s express manifestation.
Step 6: The recognition of children survives
Article 1717: the revocation does not affect the validity or the effectiveness of the recognition of children.
Step 7: Both words are in the text
Neither validity nor effectiveness. The recognition survives the will that carried it.
Where to do it
These articles describe no procedure before any agency. The Code does not say here where or in what form Article 1716’s express manifestation must appear, nor what happens when the revoking will fails entirely and the first does not revive: where the estate goes then is answered elsewhere in the Code, not in this chapter. Nor does it say what happens to non-patrimonial dispositions other than the recognition of children. None of those gaps is filled here.
How long it takes
What to do if something goes wrong
The commonest trap in this chapter is assuming that undoing the new will brings back the old. Article 1716 says the opposite: if you revoke the will that revoked, the first is effective again only if you expressly manifest it. So if your intention on revoking the second is to return to the first one’s distribution, write it down; do not take it for granted that the Code understands on its own. The article does not say where or in what form that manifestation must appear, and none is invented here. The second trap is believing that if the revoking will never works — because whoever you named renounces, or cannot inherit — then the earlier one revives by default. Article 1718 closes that: the revocation produces its effect all the same. The two articles together leave an uncomfortable scenario worth being aware of when planning: the second will may fall entirely and the first still not return. Where the estate goes then this chapter does not answer. And one piece of good news that sometimes causes needless worry: if you recognised a child inside a will and later revoked it, Article 1717 protects that recognition completely, because it says the revocation affects neither its validity nor its effectiveness. The recognition is not undone by undoing the will. MiPRFácil does not represent anyone in court and gives no legal advice.
Common mistakes
- Believing revoking the revoking will brings back the first: Article 1716 requires an express manifestation.
- Taking that intention as understood without writing it: silence leaves the first ineffective.
- Thinking the first revives if the revoking will’s heir renounces: Article 1718 rules it out.
- Thinking it revives if that heir cannot inherit: the same article rules that out too.
- Assuming revocation erases a child’s recognition: Article 1717 protects it.
- Reading Article 1717 as validity only: the text says neither validity nor effectiveness.
- Looking in Article 1716 for the form of the express manifestation: it sets none.
- Expecting this chapter to say where the estate goes if everything fails: it does not.
Frequently asked questions
If I revoke the new will, does the old one hold again?
Only if you expressly manifest it. Article 1716 says the first one’s dispositions are effective only in that case.
The new will’s heir renounced. Does the earlier one revive?
No. Article 1718 says revocation produces its effect even if those instituted do not want to succeed or cannot do so.
I recognised my child in the will and revoked it. Is that lost?
No. Article 1717 says the revocation of a will does not affect the validity or the effectiveness of the recognition of children.
Where must I say the first one holds again?
Article 1716 requires the testator to manifest it expressly, but does not say where or in what form, and this guide does not invent it.
Official sources
These are the government pages this guide is based on.
- Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico
Poder Judicial
bvirtualogp.pr.gov
Last verified
September 12, 2026
MiPRFácil is an independent informational website and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the Government of Puerto Rico or any government agency.
MiPRFácil does not submit applications on your behalf.
Was this guide helpful?
Did you find out-of-date information?
A torn holographic will is presumed destroyed by whoever was keeping it
Article 1715 of the Civil Code of 2020 calls tearing up a holographic will real revocation, and presumes whoever held it destroyed it.
How to make a will in Puerto Rico
The 2020 Civil Code’s kinds of will, who may execute one, and the rule that changed: with forced heirs you may freely dispose of half.
Not saying a formality was met does not void a will; not meeting it does
Article 1708 of the Civil Code of 2020 saves the will when it can be shown the requirement was met even if not stated.
How to file a paternity recognition in Puerto Rico
The Demographic Registry process, and why doing it within 90 days costs $20.00 instead of $35.00.
Repudiating an inheritance is valid only by public deed or a writing to the court
Article 1583 of the Civil Code of 2020 gives only those two routes. Accepting does admit a private document; repudiating does not.
Who may inherit and the six causes that forfeit an inheritance
Article 1556 of the Civil Code of 2020 lists six causes of unworthiness to inherit. Only two of the six require the person to be convicted.