Short answer. Yes. Article 832 says a revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect, even if the new will becomes inoperative because the heirs, devisees or legatees named in it are incapacitated or renounce. The old will stays revoked; the new heir's refusal does not revive it.
What the law says
A revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect, even if the new will should become inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein, or by their renunciation.
Civil Code, Article 832 — Revocation Stands Even If the Later Will Fails. Read the full provision →
The revocation holds
Article 832 settles this cleanly against reviving the old will. It provides: A revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect, even if the new will should become inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein, or by their renunciation. So when your new will contains a clause revoking the earlier one, that revocation works on its own strength. The fact that the person you named in the new will later refuses the inheritance does not undo the revocation. Your old will, once revoked, stays revoked; its provisions are not resurrected merely because the new beneficiary walks away.
Revoking and giving are two separate acts
The rule rests on a distinction the law draws inside a single will. When you make a new will, you do two different things: you revoke the old one, and you dispose of your estate to new beneficiaries. Article 832 treats the revocation as effective independently of whether the new gifts ever take effect. A testator who revokes has clearly shown he no longer wants the old will to govern; that intention is respected even if the new disposition collapses. The failure of the gift is a problem for who inherits, not a reason to pretend the old will was never cancelled.
What makes the new will inoperative
The article names the situations it covers: the new will becoming inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein, or by their renunciation. Incapacity is where the named beneficiary is legally disqualified from inheriting; renunciation is where he is qualified but simply declines the inheritance, as in your case. In either event the intended gift does not reach the person named. Yet the article makes clear that this failure of the gift, whatever its cause among these, leaves the revocation of the earlier will untouched. The two grounds are examples of the same principle at work.
Where the estate goes instead
If the revocation stands but the new gift fails, the estate does not fall back into the revoked will. Instead it passes under the rules that apply when there is no effective testamentary disposition for that property — generally, to those the law calls to inherit in the absence of a valid gift. The practical lesson for a testator is caution: revoking an old will is a serious, self-standing act. If you want a fallback in case a new beneficiary cannot or will not take, that must be provided for deliberately, because the law will not read your old will back to life for you.