11. Intestate estate of Tongco v. Vianzon (Maye) widow.
September 20, 1927 | Malcolm, J. | Waiver by cross-examination? 2.
PETITIONERS: Intestate estate of Marcelino Tongco, represented by Josefa
Tongco, administratix
RESPONDENTS: Anastacia Vianzon
SUMMARY: Marcelino Tongco and Anastacia Vianzon contracted marriage in
1894. Before Marcelino died, he presented claims in a cadastral case over certain
parcels of land, wherein he asked for titles to certain properties in the name of the
conjugal partnership between him and his wife. He died on 1925. Shortly after he
died, these parcels of land were named in his conjugal partnership with Anastacia.
Anastacia instituted a motion for the revision of certain decrees. CFI issued new
decrees and certificates of title making the parcels of land the exclusive property
of Anastacia. Josefa, Marcelino’s niece and appointed administratrix, filed an
action for recovery of these properties. The trial court ruled in favor of Anastacia,
but Josefa questioned the fact that the trial court admitted Anastacia’s testimony.
Josefa invoked Section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that
“Parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in whose
behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator
or other representative of a deceased person, upon a claim or demand against the
estate of such deceased person, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
before the death of such deceased person”. The issue is whether Anastacia, the
widow, was competent to testify in the case?
SC ruled that TC did not err in admitting Anastacia’s testimony. The actions were
NOT brought "against" the administratrix of the estate, nor were they brought
upon claims "against" the estate. Both the cadastral proceedings initiated by
Anastacia and the recovery of specified property and for damages initiated by
petitioner Josefa as adminitratix are actions to enforce demand "by" the estate.
The claim was presented in cadastral proceedings, where in one sense, there is no
plaintiff and there is no defendant. The Court also took note that there has already
been a waiver when the adverse party undertook to cross-examine the interested
person with respect to the prohibited matters.
DOCTRINE: The law does not apply and a witness is competent to testify when
the actions were not brought “against” the estate, nor were they brought upon
claims “against” the estate.
A waiver is accomplished when the adverse party undertakes to cross-examine the
interested person with respect to prohibited matters.
FACTS:
1. Marcelino Tongco and Anastacia Vianzon contrated marriage on July 5,
1894. Marcelino died on July 8, 1925, leaving Anastacia Vianzon as his
Josefa Tongco, Marcelino’s niece, was named administratrix of the estate.
3. Shortly before Marcelino’s death, he presented claims in a cadastral case in
which he asked for titles to certain properties in the name of the conjugal
partnership between him and his wife. The corresponding decrees for these
lots were issued in the name of the conjugal partnership not long after his
death.
4. Anastacia instituted a motion for the revision of certain decrees (issued not
long after Marcelino’s death). The CFI Judge Rovira held that the original
certificates should be set aside, and that new ones be issued in the name of
Anastacia Vianzon. Therefore, new decrees and certificates of title were
issued as the exlusive property of Anastacia.
5. Three months after, Josefa began another action against Anastacia for the
recovery of specified property and for damages. Only P10 was given to the
estate of Marcelino. The trial court decided in favor of Anastacia.
6. Josefa assigns two major errors:
a. that the trial court erred the appreciation of facts and
b. that the trial court erred in ruling that Anastacia, the widow, was
competent to testify.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the widow, respondent Anastacia, was competent to
testify – YES, She is competent to testify.
2. W/N the property in dispute should be assigned to the estate of Marcelino
Tongco or should be set aside as belonging exclusively to the widow –
exclusively to the widow
HELD: Trial court’s decision upheld.
RATIO:
1. By reason of Article 1407 of the civil Code, the presumption is that all the
property of the spouses is partnership property in the absence of proof that it
belongs exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
2. Tongco’s counsel argued that Anastacia’s testimony should not be received
on the ground that Section 383 of the code of Civil Procedure provides that
“Parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in
whose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor
or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, upon a
claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person, cannot
testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person”.
3. The purpose of the statute is to guard against the temptation to give false
testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the surviving
party. But Tongco’s counsel neglected the equally important rule that the law
was designed to aid in arriving at the truth and was not designed to suppress
the truth.
4. Closely interpreting the provision, the Court found that there is no error that
can be imputed to the trial court in admitting the testimony of Anastacia, the
widow.
5. The actions were NOT brought "against" the administratrix of the
estate, nor were they brought upon claims "against" the estate. Both the
cadastral proceedings initiated by Anastacia and the recovery of
specified property and for damages initiated by petitioner Josefa as
adminitratix are actions to enforce demand "by" the estate.
a. The claim was presented in cadastral proceedings, where in one
sense, there is no plaintiff and there is no defendant.
6. The Court also took note that there has already been a waiver when the
adverse party undertook to cross-examine the interested person with respect
to the prohibited matters.