Sunga-Chan v.
Chua (Short title) testimonies of respondent and Josephine to prove the alleged
GR # 143340 | August 15, 2001
Petitioner: Lilibeth Sunga-Chan and Cecilia Sunga
Respondent: Lamberto T. Chua
(Rule 130, Section 23)
FACTS
1. Lamberto T. Chua filed a complaint against Lilibeth and Cecilia,
daughter and wife of Jacinto L. Sunga, for Winding Up of
Partnership Affairs, Accounting, Appraisal and Recovery of Shares
and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Attachment with the RTC.
2. Chua alleged that he verbally entered into a partnership with
Jacinto in the distribution of Shellane and that for business
convenience, they agreed to register the business name as
SHELLITE under the name of Jacinto as a sole proprietorship with
Josephine, the sister of Chua's wife, as assistant.
3. Upon Jacinto's death, his surviving wife, and daughter, took over
the operations, control, custody, disposition and management.
4. Despite repeated demands by Chua for accounting, inventory,
appraisal, winding up and restitution of his net shares in the
partnership, they failed to comply.
5. The wife and duaghter filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that
the SEC in Manila had jurisdiction over the action which RTC
denied.
6. The wife and daughter filed their Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaims, contending that they are not liable for partnership
shares, unreceived income/profits, interests, damages and
attorneys fees.
7. They filed a second Motion to Dismiss claiming that the recovery of
shares in partnership assets /properties should be dismissed and
prosecuted against the estate of deceased Jacinto in a probate or
intestate proceedings which RTC denied.
8. SC denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the wife and
daughter, as they failed to show that a reversible error was
committed by the appellate court.
9. The entry of judgment was made by the Clerk of Court and the
case was remanded to the RTC which and set the hearing of the
case where Chua presented his evidence while the Sunga-Chans
were considered to have waived their right to present evidence for
their failure to attend.
10. RTC ruled in favor of Chua and CA affirmed
11. The wife and daughter questioned the correctness of the finding
that a partnership existed between Chua and Jacinto until Jacinto's
death. In the absence of any written document to show such , they
argue that these courts were proscribed from hearing the
partnership. They invoke the Dead Man's Statute.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the the testimonies of Chua and his witness should not have been
admitted to prove certain claims against a deceased person.
RULING & RATIO
1. No.
1. The Dead Man's Statute provides that if one party to the alleged
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other
mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue
advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained
account of the transaction but before this rule can be successfully
invoked, it is necessary that: (1) The witness is a party or assignor
of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted. (2) The action is against an executor or administrator
or other representative of a deceased person or a person of
unsound mind. (3) The subject-matter of the action is a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person or against
person of unsound mind; (4) His testimony refers to any matter of
fact which occurred before the death of such deceased person or
before such person became of unsound mind.
2. Two reasons forestall the application of the rule to this case
(1) the wife and daughter filed a compulsory counterclaim
against Chua in their answer, and with such, they themselves
effectively removed this case from the ambit of the Dead Man's
Statute (2) the testimony of Josephine is not covered by the
Dead Man's Statute for the simple reason that she is not a
party or assignor of a party.
3. The reliance alone on the Dead Man's Statute to defeat the claim
cannot prevail over the factual findings of the RTC and CA that a
partnership was established.
4. Based not only on the testimonial evidence, but the documentary
evidence as well, RTC and CA considered the evidence for Chua
as sufficient to prove the formation of a partnership, albeit an
informal one.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED and the
appealed decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.