evidence cases for feb. 05

8/20/2019 Evidence Cases for Feb. 05

1/118

February 5, 2014

Marital disqualification,

Rule 130, section 22 (differentiate from relative incompetencies

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-10396 July 29, 1915

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.

TERESA CONCEPCION, defendant-appellant.

M. Jesus Cuenco for appellant.

Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

The defendant was charged with a violation of the Opium Law. The

complaint alleged that she had in her possession and under her

control a uantit! of opium. "he was arrested, arraigned, pleaded not

guilt!, tried, found guilt!, and sentenced to pa! a fine of #$%% and

costs.

&rom that sentence she appealed to this court. 'n this court she

alleges that the lower court committed several errors, (oth of law and

of fact. )pon the uestion of fact, she alleges that the lower court

committed an error in deciding that the evidence adduced during the

trial of the cause was sufficient to show that she was guilt! of the

crime charged (e!ond a reasona(le dou(t.

)pon that uestion the Attorne!-*eneral, in a carefull! prepared (rief

in which he anal!+es the proof, reaches the conclusion that the facts

are insufficient to show that she is guilt! of the crime charged.

't appears from the evidence that on the night of the nd of

ecem(er, /$, several policemen went to the house of the

defendant, where she was living with her hus(and, &eli0 1ica(lanca.

)pon arriving there, the! o(tained permission to enter and

immediatel! proceeded to ma2e a search of the premises for opium.


2/118

3hile there is some dispute concerning the fact, we (elieve the proof

shows that the defendant, during the time the policemen were

searching the house, went to a (ed located in the house, after (eing

so ordered (! her hus(and, and too2 from (eneath a pillow a small

can of opium, said to contain a(out 45 grams of opium, and

attempted to throw it awa!. At that moment the policemen too2

possession of the can. There is some conflict in the proof as to 6ust

what too2 place at that moment. That the policemen inuired to whom

the opium (elonged is not denied. The conflict arises in the answer

which was given to that uestion. The defendant in the present case,

according to some of the witnesses, declared that it (elonged to her.

7er hus(and, &eli0 1ica(lanca, according to some witnesses,declared that he was the owner of the house and was responsi(le for

ever!thing that was found within it. The policemen, at that moment,

evidentl! (elieved that the opium (elonged to the hus(and, &eli0

1ica(lanca, for the reason that the! arrested him and too2 him to the

pue(lo, and later filed a complaint against him for a violation of the

Opium Law .7e was later (rought to trial and was acuitted.

No complaint was presented against the present defendant until after

a period of more than ten months had elapsed. The policemen who

were present at the time the opium was found certainl! 2new no more

a(out the facts at the time the complaint was presented against the

present defendant than the! did on the night when the opium was

found and when the! arrested her hus(and. The fact that the

defendant too2 the opium from under the pillow on the (ed, at thereuest of her hus(and, seems to us to (e entirel! supported (! the

proof. 7er hus(and was a confirmed user of opium. 7e admitted that

he was in the ha(it of smo2ing opium. That the defendant was

temporaril! in possession of the opium is not denied, even (! her.

That her possession was such a possession as is prohi(ited (! the

law, she strongl! denies. The mere fact that she had in her

possession the opium for (ut a moment and too2 possession of it

under her hus(and8s order, is not, in our opinion, such a possession

of opium as is intended to (e condemned (! the law. "he certainl!

did not intend, even remotel!, to have in her possession opium. "he

did e0actl! what an! other faithful wife would have done under similar


3/118

circumstances. There is no proof that she was a user of opium in an!

form. There is no proof that she 2new that the can contained opium

and conseuentl! there is no proof of the animus possidendi. 'n the

a(sence of such proof there can (e no conviction under the complaint

for the illegal possession of opium.

The appellant ma2es another assignment of error which presents an

important uestion of law. "he alleges that the lower court committed

an error in permitting the testimon! of her hus(and to (e presented

against her over her o(6ection. "he alleges that the admission of that

testimon! was in violation of paragraph $ of section $9$ of the Code

of Civil #rocedure in Civil Actions. "aid paragraph provides: ;A

hus(and can not (e e0amined for or against her hus(and without his

consent< nor a wife for or against her hus(and without her consent<

nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, (e, without the

consent of the other, e0amined as to an! communication made (!

one to the other during the marriage< (ut this e0ception does not

appl! to a civil action or proceeding (! one against the other, or to a

criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed (! one againstthe other.;

't will (e noted that said action prohi(its a hus(and from giving

testimon! against his wife without her consent, e0cept in a civil action

(etween hus(and and wife, and in a criminal action when the crime

was committed (! one against the other. The present is not a civil

action (etween hus(and and wife, neither it is a criminal action wherethe crime was committed (! one against the other. 't would seem to

clear, therefore, that the testimon! of the hus(and is not admissi(le if

the wife o(6ected. The testimon! of the hus(and should not have

(een admitted.

There still another o(6ection to the admissi(ilit! of the testimon! of the

hus(and. 7is testimon! was not given in the present case. 't was acop! of his declaration given in another case, in which he was the

defendant and in which he was charged with the illegal possession of

the opium in uestion. 't will (e remem(ered that at the time the

opium was found in the house of the defendant, the hus(and of the

present defendant was arrested< that later a complaint was presented


4/118

against him. uring the trial he testified in his own (ehalf. 't was the

testimon! given in that case which was presented as proof in the

present case. 7e was not called as a witness. 7is testimon! is not

onl! not admissi(le under the provisions a(ove uoted of section

$9$, (ut it is not admissi(le under the #hilippine Bill, which provides:

;'n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall en6o! the right to (e

heard (! himself and counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the

accusation against him, to have a speed! and pu(lic trial, to meet the

witnesses face to face, and to have compulsor! process to compel

the attendance of witnesses in his (ehalf.;

The defendant was not given an opportunit! ;to meet the witness

face to face.; The acceptance of the testimon! of her hus(and, given

in another case, was in a(solute violation of her rights and in direct

contravention of the law .The presentation and acceptance of the

testimon! of the hus(and violated two well-recogni+ed rules of law =

first, paragraph $ of section $9$ of Act No. /%, and >second?,

paragraph of section @ of the Act of Congress of ul! , /%.

At the common law the rule was that hus(and and wife could not

testif! for or against each other in an! criminal proceedings, e0cept in

the prosecution of one for criminal in6ur! to the other. The common-

law rule has (een adopted in practicall! all of the "tates of the )nited

"tates. The rule is (ased upon considerations of pu(lic polic!

growing out of the marital relation. To allow one to testif! for or

against the other would (e to su(6ect him or her to great temptation tocommit per6ur! and to endanger the harmon! and confidence of the

marital relation. The cases supporting the rule are innumera(le.

&or the foregoing reasons, the sentence of conviction must (e

revo2ed, and it is here(! ordered and decreed that the complaint (e

dismissed and the defendant discharged from the custod! of the law,

with costs de oficio. "o ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Carson and Trent, JJ., concur in the result.


5/118

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2563 Ju!" 2#, 196$

JOSE %ANUEL LE&A%A '!( PA)UITA LE&A%A, petitioners,

vs.HON. JESUS RODRIGUE&, Ju(*" o+ " Cou o+ / I!'!"o+ Ilolo,

JOSE DINEROS, ! ''y ' R""4" o+ " LA PA& ICEPLANT '!( COLD STORAGE CO., INC., '!( THE HON. COURT

O/ APPEALS, respondents.

Efrain . Trenas and !er"io #. Ma$unay for petitioners.%icardo J. Gerochi for respondents.

CASTRO, J.:

The issue tendered for resolution in this case is whether a wife, who

is a co-defendant of her hus(and in an action, ma! (e e0amined as a

hostile witness (! the adverse part! under section of 1ule $ of

the 1ules of Court, without infringing on her marital privilege not to

testif! against her hus(and under section % (D of 1ule $%. The trial

court, presided (! the respondent udge esus 1odrigue+, ruled in

the affirmative and reuired the wife to appear and testif!. The

petitioners sued for certiorari (ut the Court of Appeals dismissed their

petition and denied their motion for reconsideration. 7ence this

appeal.$

On ul! 9, /% ose ". ineros, acting as receiver of the La #a+

'ce #lant Cold "torage Co. in 'loilo, together with C.N. 7odges and

1icardo *urrea, filed an action in the Court of &irst 'nstance of 'loilo

for the annulment of a 6udgment rendered against the La #a+ 'ce

#lant (! the Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila in civil case $/94.

Named as defendants were Farciano C. 1oue, in whose favor

6udgment was rendered, and the spouses ose Fanuel and #auita

Le+ama. The complaint alleged that, (ecause of mismanagement (!

the Le+amas, the La #a+ 'ce #lant was placed under the receivership

of ineros< that during the pendenc! of the receivership, Farciano C.

1oue (rought an action against the La #a+ 'ce #lant in the Court of


6/118

&irst 'nstance of Fanila for the collection of #@%,%%%, which sum he

had supposedl! lent to it< that summons was served not on the

receiver (ut on the spouses ose Fanuel and #auita Le+ama< and

that, through the collusion of the Le+amas, 1oue was a(le to o(tain

6udgment (! default against the compan!. 't was claimed that,

(ecause the summons was served on ose Fanuel Le+ama instead

of on the receiver, the Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila acuired no

6urisdiction over the La #a+ 'ce #lant and that, therefore, the decision

of that court was void. &'vvphi&.n(t

'n their answer, the defendant spouses the herein petitionersD, while

admitting that the compan! was placed under receivership,

maintained that ose Fanuel Le+ama nevertheless remained

president of the La #a+ 'ce #lant and that as such he had authorit! to

receive in (ehalf of the compan! the court summons in civil case

$/94. The! denied entering into collusion with 1oue and averred

that the! did not contest 1oue8s claim (ecause the! 2new it to (e a

legitimate o(ligation which the La #a+ 'ce #lant had incurred

pursuant to a resolution of its (oard of directors.

'ssues having (een 6oined, the case was thereupon heard. At the

hearing ineros as2ed the court to issue asu$poena to #auita

Le+ama to testif! as ;a witness summoned (! the plaintiffs in

accordance with the 1ules of Court.; The reuest was granted over

the o(6ection of the petitioners who invo2ed the following provision of

the 1ules of Court:

A hus(and cannot (e e0amined for or against his wife without

her consent< nor a wife for or against her hus(and without his

consent, e0cept in a civil case (! one against the other, or in a

criminal case for a crime committed (! one against the other, or

in a criminal case for a crime committed (! one against the

other.G

This provision deals with two different matters which rest on different

grounds of polic!: the disualification of hus(and and wife to testif! in

each other8s (ehalf, as well as their privile"e not to testif! against

each other.@ The fundamental theor! of the common law is said to (e

that relationship of the spouses, not their pecuniar! interest, is the


7/118

(asis of the disualification. 'ndeed section % of 1ule $% is entitled

;isualification (! reason of ... relationship.;

On the other hand, while a shelter of emotional reasons has (een

offered4 for the privilege, the ;true e0planation >which? is after all the

simplest;9 and which constitutes ;the real and sole strength of theopposition to a(olishing the privilege,; is the natural repugnance in

ever! fair-minded person to compelling a wife or hus(and to (e the

means of the other8s condemnation and to su(6ecting the culprit to the

humiliation of (eing condemned (! the words of his intimate life

partner./

7ere the reuest for su$poena indicated that #auita Le+ama was todo no more than testif! as an adverse part! in the case and, indeed,

in the light of the allegations (oth in the complaint and in the answer,

the reuest was apparentl! one that could reasona(l! (e e0pected to

(e made. Thus, the complaint charged

$. = That in o(taining the 6udgment (! default in Civil Case No.

$/94 of the Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila against the La #a+'ce #lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc. defendants, in gross and

evident (ad faith, and in fraudulent conspirac!, made it appear

that the La #a+ 'ce #lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc. had o(tained

a loan of #@%,%%%.%% from defendant Farciano C. 1oue thru

defendant ose Fanuel Le+ama allegedl! upon an authorit!

vested upon defendant ose Fanuel Le+ama (! the alleged

Board of irectors of the La #a+ 'ce #lant Cold "torage Co.,

'nc. allegedl! evidenced (! the minutes of the meetings of the

Board of irectors of the said corporation signed (! defendant

ose Fanuel Le+ama and attested to (! Ben6amin Luis Bor6a

and #auita B. Le+ama and that defendants spouses ose

Fanuel Le+ama and #auita B. Le+ama had manipulated the

(oo2s of the corporation (! ma2ing it appear that such fictitiousloan was then in e0istence.

On the other hand, the answer claimed

$. That the herein defendants specificall! den! all the

allegations contained in paragraph $ of the complaint< the truth


8/118

is, that the herein defendants have not conspired and acted in

(ad faith with the plaintiff >Farciano C. 1oue? in Civil Case No.

$/94 of the Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila for the rendition of

the said 6udgment referred to therein< for the truth is, that the

herein defendants, in their capacities as #resident-Fanager and

"ecretar! of the La #a+ 'ce #lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc.,

(elieving as the! (elieve that the o(ligation sought to (e

enforced (! said civil action (eing legitimate and the allegations

of the complaint in said Civil Case No. $/94 of the Court of &irst

'nstance of Fanila are true, the! did not deem it wise to contest

the same< that the o(ligation of #@%,%%%.%% of the La #a+ 'ce

#lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc., which the defendant Farciano C.1oue sought to (e enforced in Civil Case No. $/94 of the

Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila was legitimatel! contracted in

accordance with law< that said o(ligation was dul! entered in the

(oo2s of the corporation and that the said loan is not fictitious<

that the amount reali+ed therefrom was spent for the (enefit of

the said corporation.

Thus, while the petitioners denied the charge that the loan was

fictitious, the! did not den! the allegation that it was #auita Le+ama

who, as secretar! of the compan!, signed the minutes of the meeting

at which ose Fanuel Le+ama was allegedl! authori+ed to negotiate

the loan and that it was she who, li2ewise as secretar!, made the

entr! in the (oo2s of the corporation.

't was o(viousl! to test the truth of the assertion that the loan

transaction was a(ove (oard that ineros, the compan! receiver,

wanted #auita Le+ama on the witness stand, not as a spouse

witness ;for or against her hus(and,; (ut rather as an adverse part!

in the case.

't is postulated that a part! can ma2e, as it were, such fora!s into hisopponent8s position on the strength of section of 1ule $ which

provides:

#irect e)amination of unwillin" or hostile witnesses. = A part!

ma! interrogate an! unwilling or hostile witness (! leading

uestions. A part! ma! call an adverse part! or an officer,


9/118

director, or managing agent of a pu(lic or private corporation or

of a partnership or association which is an adverse part!, and

interrogate him (! leading uestions and contradict and impeach

him in all respects as if he had (een called (! the adverse part!

and the witness thus called ma! (e contradicted and impeached

(! or on (ehalf of the adverse part! also, and ma! (e cross-

e0amined (! the adverse part! onl! upon the su(6ect-matter of

his e0amination in chief.

The (asic issue ma! therefore (e restated thus: 'n this case where

the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging fraud against the

spouses, can the wife (e compelled to testif! as an adverse part!

witness concerning her participation in the alleged fraud without

violating section % (D of 1ule $%H

't is argued that the wife ma! (e so compelled (ut her testimon!

would (e receiva(le onl! against her.% 't is even suggested that

;each ma! testif! in his or her own (ehalf, although the testimon!

ma! inure to the (enefit of the other spouse, or against his or her own

interest, although the testimon! ma! also militate against the other

spouse.; )pon the other hand, it is insisted that compelling #auita

Le+ama to testif! will transgress section %(D of 1ule $%, especiall!

if her testimon! will support the plaintiff8s charge.

The complaint charges ;fraudulent conspirac!; on the part of the

spouses and one Farciano C. 1oue to ma2e it appear that the La

#a+ 'ce #lant Cold "torage Co., 'nc. was inde(ted to 1oue. The

wife, #auita Le+ama, is called upon to testif! as an adverse part!

witness on the (asis of her following participation in the alleged

fraudulent scheme: ;that it was #auita Le+ama who as "ecretar! of

the compan! signed the minutes of the meeting during which Fanuel

Le+ama was allegedl! authori+ed to negotiate the loan and that it was

she who, li2ewise as "ecretar!, made the entr! in the (oo2s of thecorporation.;

Evidentl!, #auita Le+ama will (e as2ed to testif! on what actuall!

transpired during the meeting and will (e as2ed uestions on the

matter of the veracit! or falsit! of the entr! in the (oo2s of the

corporation. 3hether her testimon! will turn out to (e adverse or


10/118

(eneficial to her own interest, the inevita(le result would (e to pit her

against her hus(and. The interests of hus(and and wife in this case

are necessaril! interrelated. Testimon! adverse to the wife8s own

interests would tend to show the e0istence of collusive fraud (etween

the spouses and would then wor2 havoc upon their common defense

that the loan was not fictitious. There is the possi(ilit!, too, that the

wife, in order to soften her own guilt, if guilt! she is, ma! unwittingl!

testif! in a manner entirel! disparaging to the interests of the

hus(and.

Because of the une0pensive wording of the rule which provides

merel! that the wife cannot (e e0amined ;for or against her hus(and

without his consent,; it is further argued that ;when hus(and and wife

are parties to an action, there is no reason wh! either ma! not (e

e0amined as a witness for or against himself or herself alone,; and

his or her testimon! could operate onl! against himself or herself.

Even if such view were generall! accepta(le as an e0ception to the

rule, or even as a separate doctrine, it would (e inapplica(le in this

case where the main charge is collusive fraud (etween the spouses

and a third person, and the evident purpose of e0amination of the

wife is to prove that charge.

'ndeed, in those 6urisdictions which allow one spouse to (e su(6ected

to e0amination (! the adverse part! as a hostile witness when (oth

spouses are parties to the action, either the interests of the spouses

are separate or separa(le, or the spouse offered as a witness is

merel! a formal or nominal part!.$

The final point urged upon us is that to prevent one spouse from

testif!ing would encourage alliance of hus(and and wife as an

instrument of fraud< for then what (etter wa! would there (e to

prevent discover! than to ma2e a co-conspirator in fraud immune to

the most convenient mode of discover! availa(le to the opposite

part!H This argument overloo2s the fact that section of 1ule $ is

a mere concession, for the sa2e of discover!, from the rule which

precludes the hus(and or the wife from (ecoming the means of the

other8s condemnation. The said rule of discover! should therefore not


11/118

(e e0panded in meaning or scope as to allow e0amination of one8s

spouse in a situation where this natural repugnance o(tains.

't ma! not (e amiss to state in passing that the respondent ineros

has not demonstrated that there is no evidence availa(le to him other

than the Le+amas8 testimon! to prove the charge recited in thecomplaint.&*wph+&.ñt

ACCO1'N*LI, the resolutions appealed from are versed, and this

case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for further

proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., %eyes, J..., #ion, !anche, An"eles, and/ernando, JJ., concur.

Ma0alintal and 1aldivar, JJ., too0 no part.

/oo!o"

1esolution @, CA-*.1. $49-1, Nov. G, /@.

1esolution , CA-*.1. $49-1, an. , /.$3hile the appeal was pending in this Court, the receivership

was dissolved and, conseuentl!, ose ". ineros, who was

originall! made a part! respondent, was dropped and the La #a+

'ce #lant Cold "torage Co. su(stituted in his stead. 1esolution,

Oct. , /.

G1ule $%, sec. %(D.

@"ee 9 . 3igmore, Evidence, sec. 4 at , sec. 9 at

FcNaughton rev. /D >hereafter cited as 9 3igmore?.

. 3igmore, Evidence, sec. %$ at 4$4 $d ed. /G%D

>hereafter cited as 3igmore?.

4 &or instance, in 2nited !tates v. Concepcion, $ #hil. 9

/@D the (asis of the rule is said to (e the ;considerations of

pu(lic polic! growing out of the marital relation.; "aid the Court:

;To allow one to testif! for or against the other would (e to

su(6ect him or her to great temptation to commit per6ur! and to


12/118

endanger the harmon! and confidence of the marital relation.; At

94. On the other hand, in 3eople v. /rancisco, 49 #hil. /G

/G4D, the Court gave as reasons for the privilege the following:

;&irst, identit! of interests< second, the conseuent danger of

per6ur!< third, the polic! of the law which deems it necessar! to

guard the securit! and confidences of private life even at the ris2

of an occasional failure of 6ustice, and which re6ects such

evidence (ecause its admission would lead to domestic disunion

and unhappiness< and fourth, (ecause, where a want of

domestic tranuilit! e0ists, there is danger of punishing one

spouse through the hostile testimon! of the other.; At 4%$.

99 3igmore, sec. 4 at .

/4d ., sec. 9 at 4.

% "ee 9 3igmore 4.

/4 C..". G44.

"ee Fen+el vs. Tu((s, et al., @$ N3 @$, @ cited in @9 Am.

ur. /.

$ /4 C..". G44.


13/118

"ECON 'J'"'ON

G.R. No. L-6306 /"u'y 2#, 19#9

PEOPLE O/ THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.HON. %ARIANO C. CASTAEDA, JR., ' Ju(*" o+ " Cou o+ / I!'!" o+ P'7'!*', 8'! III, '!( 8ENJA%IN /.

%ANALOTO, respondents.

/iscal %e"idor 5 A"lipay and !pecial Counsel 6icente Macalino for

petitioner.

Moises !evilla 7campo for private petitioner.

Cicero J. 3unalan for respondent.

SANTOS, J.:

On the (asis of the complaint 1 of his wife, Jictoria F. Fanaloto, herein private respondentBen6amin Fanaloto was charged (efore the Court of &irst 'nstance of #ampanga, presided (! respondent udge, 7on.

Fariano C. Castaneda r., with the crime of &alsification of #u(lic ocument committed, according to the 'nformation, as

follows:

That on or a(out the /th da! of Fa!, /4@, in the

Funicipalit! of "an &ernando, province of #ampanga,

#hilippines, and within the 6urisdiction of this 7onora(le

Court, the a(ove-named a BENAF'N &. FANALOTO, withdeli(erate intent to commit falsification, did then and there

willfull!, unlawfull! and feloniousl! counterfeit, imitate and

forge the signature of his spouse Jictoria F. Fanaloto in a

deed of sale e0ecuted (! said accused wherein he sold a

house and lot (elonging to the con6ugal partnership of said

spouse in favor of #onciano Lacsamana under oc. No.

/@4, #age No. 4, Boo2 No. LJ'', "eries of /4@, notari+ed(! Notar! #u(lic A(raham #a. *orospe, there(! ma2ing it

appear that his spouse Jictoria F. Fanaloto gave her

marital consent to said sale when in fact and in truth she did

not. 2


14/118

At the trial, the prosecution called the complaint-wife to the witness

stand (ut the defense moved to disualif! her as a witness, invo2ing

"ec. %, 1ule $% of the 1evised 1ules Of Court which provides:

"EC. %. #is8ualification $y reason of interest or

relationship 9 The following persons cannot testif! as tomatters in which the! are interested, directl! or indirectl! as

herein enumerated.

000 000 000

(D A hus(and can not (e e0amined for or at his wife without

her consent< nor a wife for or against her hus(and withouthis consent, e0cept in a civil case (! one against the other

or in a criminal case for a crime committed (! one against

the other.

The prosecution opposed said motion to disualit! on the ground that

the case falls under the e0ception to the rule, contending that it is a

;criminal case for a crime committed (! one against the other.;Notwithstanding such opposition, respondent udge granted the

motion, disualif!ing Jictoria Fanaloto from testif!ing for or against

her hus(and, in an order dated Farch $, /44. A motion for

reconsideration petition was filed (ut was denied (! respondent

udge in an order dated Fa! /, /44.

7ence, this petition for certiorari file (! the office of the #rovincial

&iscal, on (ehalf of the #eople of the #hilippines, see2ing set aside

the aforesaid order of the respondent udge and pra!ing that a

preliminar! in6unction or a ternporar! restraining order (e issued (!

this Court en6oining said 6udge from further proceeding with the trial of

aforesaid Criminal Case No. %.

On une %, /44, this Court resolved = aD to issue a temporar!

restraining order, and (D to reuire the "olicitor *eneral to appear as

counsel for the petitioner. 3 The Office of the "olicitor *eneral filed its Notice of Appearance on une4, /44,

and its Femorandum in support of the #etition on August $%, /44.

5 The respondents filed their Femorandum

on "eptem(er @, /44.63hereupon, the case was considered su(mitted for decision.

#


15/118

&rom the foregoing factual and procedural antecedents emerges the

sole issues determinative of the instant petition, to wit: 3hether or not

the criminal case for &alsification of #u(lic ocument filed against

herein private respondent Ben6amin &. Fanaloto = who allegedl!

forged the signature of his wife, Jictoria F. Fanaloto, in a deed of

sale, there(! ma2ing it appear that the latter gave her marital consent

to the sale of a house and lot (elonging to their con6ugal partnership

when in fact and in truth she did not = ma! (e considered as a

criminal case for a crime committed (! a hus(and against his wife

and, therefore, an e0ception to the rule on marital disualification.

3e sustain petitioner8s stand that the case is an e0ception to the

marital disualification rule, as a criminal case for a crime committed

(! the accused-hus(and against the witness-wife.

. The act complained of as constituting the crime of &alsification of

#u(lic ocument is the forger! (! the accused of his wife8s signature

in a deed of sale, there(! ma2ing it appear therein that said wife

consented to the sale of a house and lot (elonging to their con6ugal

partnership when in fact and in truth she did not. 't must (e noted that

had the sale of the said house and lot, and the signing of the wife8s

name (! her hus(and in the deed of sale, (een made with the

consent of the wife, no crime could have (een charged against said

hus(and Clearl!, therefore, it is the hus(and8s (reach of his wife8s

confidence which gave rise to the offense charged. And it is this same

(reach of trust which prompted the wife to ma2e the necessar!complaint with the Office of the #rovincial &iscal which, accordingl!,

filed the aforesaid criminal case with the Court of &irst 'nstance of

#ampanga. To rule, therefore, that such criminal case is not one for a

crime committed (! one spouse against the other is to advance a

conclusion which completel! disregards the factual antecedents of

the instant case.

. This is not the first time that the issue of whether a specific offense

ma! (e classified as a crime committed (! one spouse against the

other is presented to this Court for resolution. Thus, in the case

of 7rdoño v. #a8ui"an, $this Court, through Fr. ustice 1amon C. Auino, set up the criterion to (efollowed in resolving the issue, stating that:


16/118

3e thin2 that the correct rule, which ma! (e adopted in this

6urisdiction, is that laid down in Car"ill v. !tate, $@ AL1, $$, %, #ac

G, O2L $G, wherein the court said:

The rule that the in6ur! must amount to a ph!sical wrong

upon the is too narrow< and the rule that an! offenseremotel! or indirectl! affecting domestic within the e0ception

is too (road. The (etter rule is that, 37EN AN O&&EN"E

'1ECTLI ATTACK", O1 '1ECTLI AN J'TALLI

'F#A'1", T7E CON)*AL 1ELAT'ON, 'T COFE" 3'T7'N

T7E ECE#T'ON to the statute that one shall not (e a

witness against the other e0cept in a criminal prosecution

for a crime committed (!D one against the other.

Appl!ing the foregoing criterion in said case of 7rdoño v.

#a8ui"an this Court held that the rape committed (! the hus(and of

the witness-wife against their daughter was a crime committed (! the

hus(and against his wife. Although the victim of the crime committed

(! the accused in that can was not his wife (ut their daughter, this

Court, nevertheless, applied the e0ception for the reason that said

criminal act ;#ositivel! underminedD the connu(ial relationship. 9

3ith more reason must the e0ception appl! to the instant case where

the victim of the crime and the person who stands to (e directl!

pre6udiced (! the falsification is not a third person (ut the wife herself.

And it is undenia(le that the act comp of had the effect of directl! and

vitall! impairing the con6ugal relation. This is apparent not onl! in the

act Of the wife in personall! lodging her complaint with the Office of

the #rovincial &iscal, (ut also in her insistent efforts 10 in connection with theinstant petition, which see2s to set aside the order disualified her from testif!ing against her hus(and. Ta2en collectivel!,

the actuations of the witness-wife underacore the fact that the martial and domestic relations (etween her and the

accused-hus(and have (ecome so strained that there is no more harmon! to (e preserved said nor peace and tranuilit!

which ma! (e distur(ed. 'n such a case, as 3e have occasion to point out in previous decisions, ;identit! of interests

disappears and the conseuent danger of per6ur! (ased on that 'dentit! is none0istent. Li2ewise, in such a situation, the

securit! and confidence of private life which the law aims at protecting will (e nothing (ut 'deals which, through their

a(sence, merel! leave a void in the unhapp! home. 11 Thus, there is no reason to appl! the martial disualification rule.

$. &inall!, overriding considerations of pu(lic polic! demand that the

wife should not (e disualified from testif!ing against her hus(and in

the instant case. &or, as aptl! o(served (! the "olicitor *eneral,; tDo

espouse the contrar! view would spawn the dangerous precedent of


17/118

a hus(and committing as man! falsifications against his wife as he

could con6ure, see2ing shelter in the anti-marital privilege as a license

to in6ure and pre6udice her in secret = all with una(ashed and

complete impunit!.

'N J'E3 O& ALL T7E &O1E*O'N*, the order of the lower courtdated Farch $, /44, disualif!ing Jictoria Fanaloto from testif!ing

for or against her hus(and, Ben6amin Fanaloto, in Criminal Case No.

%, as well as the order dated Fa! /, /44, den!ing the motion

for reconsideration are here(! "ET A"'E. The temporar! restraining

order issued (! this Court is here(! lifted and the respondent udge

is here(! ordered to proceed with the trial of the case, allowing

Jictoria Fanaloto to testif! against her hus(and.

"O O1E1E.

/ernando :Chairman;, arredo, Antonio, A8uino and Concepcion, Jr.,

JJ., concur.

/oo!o"

"ee Anne0es ;A;, ;B;, and B-; of the #etition 1ollo, pp-

-@D.

Anne0 ;C; of the #etition 1ollo, pp. -4D.

$ 1ollo, p. $/.

G 4$id., p. GG.

@ 4$id., p. 4.

4$id., p. 94.

4 4$id., p. //.

9 *.1. No. L-$/%, anuar! $, /4@, "C1A 4%, at

4$.

/ 4d., p. 4G.


18/118

% Jictoria Fanaloto, through her counsel assisted the

#rovincial &iscal of #ampanga in filling the instant petition

for certiorari rollo, pp. /-%D. &urthermore, she file on Aug.

, /44 a memorandum in support of the petition rollo, pp.

9-4GD, and, on ec. 9, /44, a pleading entitled

Chronologicall! = Effected O(servations and

Circumstances in "upport of or to Butress Femorandum for

#rivate #etitioner Jictoria F. Fanaloto, dated August 9,

/44 informing this Court that the trou(le in her marital

relation with her hus(and the herein private respondent is

;(e!ond repair.; rollo pp- %@- %9D.

#eople vs. &ransisco 49 #hil /G, 4%G cited in Ordono

vs. auigan, supra.D.


19/118

Rule 130, section 23

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-58164. September 2, 1983.

!OS" G#"RR"RO, $%RI% G#"RR"RO, $%GD%L"N% G#"RR"RO"S&IRIT#, '(()(te* b+ er (b'* /%NDIDO "S&IRIT#, GR"GORIO

G#"RR"RO, /L%R% G#"RR"RO, "t %0., Petitioner , . ST. /L%R"SR"%LT /O., LTD., G#ILL"R$O T. G#"RR"RO, /"/ILI% G#"RR"RO,

'(()(te* b+ %NG"LO /%RD"O, &"RLIND% G#"RR"RO, et., "t%0., Respondents.

Romeo !. /'00eo, 7or Petitioners.

&ob0'*or, N''reo, %'*', Tom'r &'re*e L': O77)e( 7orre(po*et #)te* ;o()< /orp.

Nept'0) Go'0e( %((o)'te( 7or re(po*et Gerrero(.

F.=. S't)'


20/118

*a* 4a$= &'". I% ha $ h"* %ha% %a%'% !&#*#$/ %ha% a !a&% #$#$%&% # #$-4!%$% % %%# h& %h a*& !a&% # *a* & #$a$,4'% a!!"#* %-%" #$ a--&*a$- #%h %h#& !& &*#$/, #&&!-%# %h#& !#%. Th "a ' %h &* ?a/a#$% a$ -'%& & a*4#$#%&a%& &%h& &!&$%a%# a *-a* !&$.= I% h'"* $%* %ha% a%& %h4$%#$ a$ -'%& & a*4#$#%&a%& %h &* & %h& &!&$%a%#"", h#-h 4a$ %ha% %h &* ?&!&$%a%#= #$-"'* $" %h h,"#E :ASIS OF DEFENDANTS=EVIDENCE DISRE5ARDIN5 T>AT OF T>E PLAINTIFFS=; REMAND TO TRIALCOURT PROPER RECOURSE. — Th %a" -'&% &$*&* #% *-##$ "" $%h a# %h *$*a$%= #*$- a$* #%h'% &/a&* % %h !& %ha% %h!"a#$%# ha* !&$%* $ +'" 17, 167 & %h C'&% A!!a" -'"*#$a"" &" !"a#$%#= !%#%#$ % *#'a"# %h %a" G'*/. A 4*##* %h C'&% A!!a", %h *-##$ $%$- %h !"a#$%# % !a *a4a/ a$*a%%&$= %, a!a&% &4 %h -% '#%, #$ %h %a//$/ a4'$% TM#""#$ O$ >'$*&* E#/h% Th& Th'a$* a$* F# >'$*&*(P12,1H3,800.00) P, #%h'% !"a#$%# ha#$/ $ /#, %h -ha$- %-4!"% %h#& #*$-, % -&a4#$ %h #%$ %h *$, a$*% !&$% &'%%a" #*$-. Th a %h %a" -'&% a$* %h C'&% A!!a"!&-** #$ %h# -a, "#%#/a%#$ -a4 4& a /a4 %-h$#-a"#%# %ha$ a!&-*#$/ % a&-h %h %&'%h a$* 4% G'%#-. N %h& a#&& -'& a-%#$ # *4a$** '% & %h# C'&% % &4a$* %h -a & '&%h&!&-*#$/.

D " / I S I O N

V%S>#"?, J.@


21/118

I$ %h#& !%#%#$ & &# certiorari , !%#%#$& a&


22/118

5'&&& -'"* -$%#$' #$ %h -'"%#a%#$ %h "a$* a$* $G4$% %h$&= ha& #$ %h !&*'- & a "$/ a h $** %h !&!&%.D4#$a*& Ra4#&@ -$%#$'* h# %$a$- '$%#" h&%" & %h *a%h A$*& 5'&&&. S4%#4 #$ +'" 163, A$*& 5'&&& *#* '&#* h# #*, S/'$*a La'#$*a$'4, a$* %h#& -h#"*&$, h a& %h !%#%#$&#$ %h# -a. C%#$a 5'&&& -$%#$'* a %&'% %h *-a* A$*&5'&&&. -ha$&"#&%'a" "a"#&a&

Th -4!"a#$% '&%h& a""/* %ha% a a&" a D-4& 10, 1687, %h "a$*a '&* %h :'&a' La$* & a$* #$ %h $a4 A$*& 5'&&&a L% N. 782, Ca N. , Ca*a%& N. 226 %h Pa&aa' Ca*a%&.S4%#4 *'$/ %h "a%%& !a&% 1671 -&%a#$ !!" h #$%&*'-*%h4" a a/$% & '& %h "a$* a!!&a-h* 4 %h !"a#$%##$ &*& % -'& %h#& -$$% % %h a" %h !&!&%. Sa#* !"a#$%# &#$&4* %ha% %h "a$* a %#%"* #$ %h $a4 %h#& -'#$, Ma$'" 5'&&&.P"a#$%# 4a* #$'# a$* *#-&* %h ""#$/ %ha% Ma$'" 5'&&&

a a" % ha %h "% %#%"* #$ h# $a4 $ %h a# a ?D* Sa" La$*= *a%* A!" 2, 16H !'&!&%*" -'%* C%#$a 5'&&&; %ha% h-a'* %h "% % '&* #$ h# $a4 a L% N. 782 a$* h a #'*a*a$- P"a$ N. AP1000H $ F&'a& 2H, 1692; %ha% #$ %h a*a$- !"a$#'* % h#4, #% a *'" $%* %ha% L% N. 782 ha* $ !&#'"'&* & A$*& 5'&&&; %ha% #$ 1693, Ma$'" 5'&&&, a#%* F"#-##4 5'&&&, a%h& %h *$*a$% 5'&&&, #"* a$ a!!"#-a%#$ &&/#%&a%#$ "a$* #%h %h C'&% F#&% I$%a$- R#@a"; %ha%$%#%h%a$*#$/ %h !!#%#$ %h h#& C%#$a 5'&&&, %h -'&%

&'"* %ha% Ma$'" 5'&&& $* %h "%; %ha% *!#% !!#%&= a!!a" % ah#/h& -'&%, %h R/#%& D* #'* O/#$a" C&%##-a% T#%" N. 861% %h a!!"#-a$%; %ha% $ S!%4& 1, 1671, %h& a #"* #%h %hR/#%& D* R#@a" a D* A"'% Sa" !'&!&%*" -'%* Ma$'" 5'&&& #$ a& %h *$*a$% 5'&&&; %ha% %h R/#%& D* /a *' -'& % %h &/#%&a%#$ %ha% **, -a$-""* OCT N.861 a$* a #'* T&a$& C&%##-a% N. 336926 #$ #% %a*; %ha% $ %ha4 *a %ha% %h ** a" a &/#%&*, %h *$*a$% 5'&&&-a'* % $%a@* a$ A&%#-" Pa&%$&h#! S%. C"a&= Ra"%C4!a$, L%*., -$%#%'%#$/ %h4" a !a&%$&; %ha% $ S!%4& 2H,1671, %h *$*a$% 5'&&& "* %h *#!'%* "% #$ a D* A"'%Sa" % %h S%. C"a&= Ra"% C4!a$, L%*.; %ha% #&%' %h&, %hR/#%& D* #'* TCT N. 30H2 #$ %h $a4 a#* &a"% -4!a$.

A--&*#$/ % %h /#$a" a$* a4$** -4!"a#$%, %h D* Sa" #$ a& Ma$'" 5'&&& a &a'*'"$%, #4'"a%* a$* a"##* & %h &a$, a4$/%h&, %ha% C%#$a 5'&&& a $% %h $& %h "a$* a% %h %#4 h!'&!&%*" "* #%; %ha% Ma$'" 5'&&& %a#$* OCT N. 861 #$ &a'* %h !"a#$%#; %ha% %h D* Sa" % %h *$*a$% 5'&&& a$* S%.

C"a&= Ra"% C4!a$, L%*. a$* %h %&a$& -&%##-a% %#%" #$ %h#& a&a& &a'*'"$% a$* #4'"a%*, a$* #$-%# a/a#$% %h !"a#$%# & %h&a$, a4$/ %h&, %ha% a% %h %#4 -'%#$ %h D* Sa", %h*$*a$% 5'&&&


23/118

%ha% %h a#* a/&4$% a $%&* #$% #$ /& a$* #*$% a* a#%h.

S!a&a% a$& & #"* %h *$*a$% 5'&&&, S%. C"a&= Ra"%C4!a$, L%*. a$* U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$. Th *$*a$% 5'&&&a""/* %ha% C%#$a 5'&&& a %h a"'% $& %h !&!&%; %ha% %ha-%#$ %h !"a#$%# ha* !&-* a$* %h a& /'#"% "a-h. S%. C"a&= Ra"% C4!a$, L%*. a&&* %ha% #% -$%&a-% #%h U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$a 4a* #$ /* a#%h. U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$ a&&* %ha% %h& # $!#% #$%&% %$ !"a#$%# a$* %h# *$*a$% -$#*$/ %ha% %h!"a#$%# a& $% !a&%# % %h +#$% V$%'& A/&4$%.

I' ha#$/ $ G#$*, %h -a !&-** % %a".

F- C&a$%, /&a$*$ C%#$a 5'&&&, %%##* a a #%$ %h!"a#$%# %ha% ha#$/ ha* !&#' #$&4a%#$ %ha% %h *#!'%* "% a&&* &4 A$*& 5'&&& a$* %ha% C%#$a 5'&&& 4&" 4&%/a/*

#% % Ma$'" 5'&&&, h $% % %h h' Ma$'" 5'&&& #$ :a& Sa$D#$##, Pa&aa', R#@a", #$ 169H a% %h h% %h !"a#$%#, % #$'#&a'% %h 4&%/a/; %ha% #$ &!", Ma$'" 5'&&& %a%* %ha% %h "a$* ha*$ "* '% #% '"* -ha$/* #%h a$%h& "% %h a4 a&a; %ha% #$1670, S%& C&a$% a$* La'&a C&a$%, -h#"*&$ C%#$a 5'&&&,a$* h $% % Ma$'" 5'&&& a% %h S%a. R#%a Ch'&-h #$ Pa&aa';%ha% S%& a$* La'&a a


24/118

O$ O-%& 16, 1673, La'&a C&a$% %%##* %ha% h& 4%h&, C%#$a5'&&&, ha* $ #-< & a "$/ %#4 & h *#* a% %h a/ H0 a&#$ 16H; a$* %ha% h& 4%h& -'"* a"< $" #$#* %h#& h' #$ Pa&aa';%ha% %h 4$ !$% & %h #""$ h& 4%h& -a4 &4 Ma$'"5'&&&; a$* %ha%, %h&'/h h& -h#"*&$, C%#$a 5'&&& -'"* a< 4$&4 Ma$'" 5'&&& -a' %h "a$* %ha% A$*& 5'&&& ha* "$% %h&.

A%& La'&a C&a$% ha* %h' %%##*, -'$" & %h *$*a$% 5'&&&G-%* % %h "#$ '%#$#$/ $ %h /&'$* %ha% %h a#* #%$ a%%##$/ $ 4a%%& h#-h a& !&h##%* '$*& S-. 20(a), R'" 130, %hR'" C'&%. Th %a" -'&% ha#$/ &'"* %ha% %h #%$ 4a a$&,*$*a$%= -'$" &/#%&* a -$%#$'#$/ G-%#$. Th -'&% a""* %h#%$ % -$%#$' h& %%#4$ 'G-% % '-h G-%#$. (TSN, !!. 620,O-%& 16, 1673.)

R'4#$/ h& %%#4$, La'&a C&a$% %a%* %ha% %h "a$* a "$% A$*& 5'&&& % C%#$a 5'&&&; %ha% Ma$'" 5'&&& "a$* 4$ %C%#$a 5'&&& & '#% 4 %#4; %ha% h&%" a%& %h *a%h C%#$a5'&&&, Ma$'" 5'&&& $% % %h#& h', a--4!a$#* F"#-##45'&&&, a$* '44* '! %h "a$ h ha* %$** % C%#$a 5'&&& #$%h %%a" a4'$% P1,600.00; a$* %ha% F"#-##4 5'&&& a$&a" P&#*#$/+'*/ O Th# >$&a" C'&% T I$h##% >#4" A$*KO& T T&a$& Ca TA$%h& :&a$-h. O!!#%#$ % %h a#* 4%#$ & #"*. O$ A!" 29, 167,%h %a" -'&% *$#* %h 4%#$.

A% %h -$%#$'a%#$ %h %a" $ +'$ 1, 167, !"a#$%# a$* %h#& -'$"a#"* % a!!a& *!#% *' $%#- a$* &!a%* !&#' a&$#$/ % %h#&"a&. I$%a* a!!a$/ #$ -'&%, !"a#$%#, %h&' -'$", #"* a$ '&/$%4%#$ % &% %h ha$/, h#-h a !!* %h *$*a$%. O$ $*a%, %h -'&% #'* a$ &*& a "" G/--ha$&".-4.!h

I$ # %h $$a!!a&a$- %h !"a#$%# a "" a %h#& -'$" &%*a= ha$/, %h a& *4* % ha a#* %h#& /h% % '&%h& !&$%& &4a"" & %h#& #*$- #$ -'&%, a$* $ 4%#$ *$*a$%=-'$", %h C"&< C'&%, A%%. +'a$ A. Ca&a4a, # h& a'%h@* a$*-44##$* % &-# %h #*$- & %h *$*a$%. A%& %h *$*a$%ha -"* %h#& -a, %h a& /#$ 10 *a #%h#$ h#-h % #" %h#&&!-%# 44&a$*a a$* %h -a # *4* '4#%%* & *-##$ a%&&-#!% %h -4!"% %&a$-!% %$/&a!h#- $%. (R-&* $ A!!a",


25/118

!. 212.)

O$ +'$ 22, 167, !"a#$%# #"* a Ma$#%a%#$ % %h -% %ha% %h *#*$% a# %h#& /h% % !&$% '&%h& #*$-, % -&a4#$*$*a$%= #%$, a$* % !&$% &'%%a" #*$-; a$* %ha% %h &&&#$/ %h &-# %h /h% '!$ %h #$a"#% %h *-##$ %hC'&% A!!a" #$ a !%#%#$ & certiorari , !&h##%#$ a$* 4a$*a4' a/a#$%%h P&#*#$/ +'*/ %h %a" -'&%, h#-h %h & %h$ !&!a$/ % #".

I$**, $ +'$ 28, 167, !"a#$%# #$%#%'%* %h a#* !-#a" -##" a-%#$,h#-h a *-EREFORE, G'*/4$% # h& &$*&* #$ a& %h *$*a$% (a$*)a/a#$% %h !"a#$%# -ha$&1#&%'a" 1a"#&a&

1. D#4##$/ %h -4!"a#$% a$* A4$** C4!"a#$%;

2. O&*$/ %h !"a#$%# % !a %h !a% *$*a$% 5'&&& %h a4'$%

P20,000.00 & a-%'a" *a4a/, P800,000.00 & 4&a" *a4a/ a$*P10,000.00 a a%%&$= ;

3. O&*$/ %h !"a#$%# % !a %h *$*a$% S%. C"a&= Ra"% C. L%*., %ha4'$% P1,623,000.00 a a-%'a" *a4a/, P80,000.00 a 4!"a&*a4a/ a$* P8,000.00 a a%%&$= ;

. O&*$/ %h !"a#$%# % !a %h *$*a$% U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$ %ha4'$% P60,800.00 a a-%'a" *a4a/; P100,000.00 & " /*#""a$* '#$ &!'%a%#$, PH0,000.00 a 4!"a& *a4a/, P18,000.00 a"a&= ; a$*

8. T !a %h -% '#%.

Th R/#%& D* R#@a" # h& *#&-%* % -a$-" %h L# P$*$ #$T&a$& C&%##-a% T#%" N. 30H2 #$ %h $a4 %h S%. C"a&= Ra"%C., L%*., :< T1671. Ma$h#", %h *$*a$% U$#%* >'#$/ C&!&a%#$# &*&* % !&-* a$* -$%#$' #%h #% -44#%4$% '$*& %hM4&a$*'4 A/&4$% *a%* O-%& 12, 1671. (R-&* $ A!!a", !!.

286291.) -&a"a$a*

O$ +'" 20, 167, & %h& (3) *a & !"a#$%# &-#* %h *-##$,%h #"* #%h %h %a" -'&% a M%#$ EA'$*a$%#a Ca'%"a !&a#$/ %ha%h'"* %h C'&% A!!a" &$*& a$ a*& &"'%#$ #$ CA5.R. N. SF03120, %h "& -'&% h'"* % a#* #% &*& +'$ 1, 167 a$* a""!"a#$%# % !&$% %h& #*$-, -&a4#$ #%$ %h*$*a$%, a$* !&$% &'%%a" #*$-.


26/118

O$ A'/'% 21, 167, !"a#$%# #"* a 4%#$ & &-$#*&a%#$ %h *-##$h#-h %h &-#* $ +'" 23, 167.

Ea&" #$ 1678, +'*/ A&$# A"-a$%a&a h &$*&* %h *-##$ a&!"a-* +'*/ F"&"#a$a Ca%&:a&%"4. I$ h& &*& F&'a& 13,1678, +'*/ Ca%&:a&%"4 &"* %ha% G/--ha$&".-4.!h

1) Th !"a#$%#= ?M%#$ EA'$*a$%#a Ca'%"a= *a%* +'" 1H, 167, ha#$/$ !a* '!$ +'*/ A&$# :. A"-a$%a&a %h &$*#%#$ %hD-##$ *a%* +'" 17, 167, # *4* % ha $ -"a&" *$#* %h>$&a" +'*/ h !$$* %h a#* *-##$;

2) Th !"a#$%#= ?M%#$ & R-$#*&a%#$= *a%* A'/'% 21, 167 a$* ?S'!!"4$%a" M%#$ & R-$#*&a%#$= *a%* A'/'% 22, 167, ha % a %h a& h&, *$#*;

x x x

8) Th !"a#$%#= ?M%#$ & R-$#*&a%#$= a$* ?S'!!"4$%a" M%#$ &R-$#*&a%#$= a& $% !&&4a a$* ha '!$** %h &'$$#$/ %h!* a!!a". -&a"a#&%'a1a"#&a&

O$ F&'a& 21, 1678, !"a#$%# !&-%* %h#& a!!a" % %h C'&% A!!a"

h& %h -a a *-


27/118

h$ %h a#"* % a!!a& a% a ha$/ % %h %a" G'*/ *'$/ %h!$*$- !&-*#$/ %a


28/118

'&%h& %%##$/, '!$ &a$#$/ %ha% '$*'" %&a#$* %h 4a$#$/ %h!&##$ %h R'" C'&% &"#* '!$, %h %a" -'&% *!* #%" %h !!&%'$#% $-, %h #$a!!"#-a#"#% %h*a* 4a$= &'".

I% ha $ h"* %ha% %a%'% !&#*#$/ %ha% a !a&% #$ #$%&% # #$-4!%$%% %%# h& %h a*& !a&% # *a* & #$a$, 4'% a!!"#* %-%" #$a--&*a$- #%h %h#& !& &*#$/, #&&!-%# %h#& !#%. Th "a '%h &* ?a/a#$% a$ -'%& & a*4#$#%&a%& & %h& &!&$%a%# a*-a* !&$.= I% h'"* $%* %ha% a%& %h 4$%#$ a$ -'%& &

a*4#$#%&a%& %h &* & %h& &!&$%a%# "", h#-h 4a$ %ha% %h&* ?&!&$%a%#= #$-"'* $" %h h, "#


29/118

Ca*a%&. A$*& 5'&&& a %h "$ -"a#4a$%. U$%#" 1692, $ %h& !&$-"a#4* %h "%.

Th &/#$/ !& a& 4a%a"" $ %h '%#$ &a#* %h !"a#$%#a % h%h& & $% (1) C%#$a 5'&&& & A$*& 5'&&& $* %h "%h$ %h &4& !'&!&%*" "* #% % Ma$'" 5'&&& #$ 16H; (2) C%#$a5'&&& &a"" "* & 4&" 4&%/a/* %h "a$* % Ma$'" 5'&&&; (3)Ma$'" 5'&&& a$*, a%& h#4, %h *$*a$% 5'&&& & '& #$/* a#%h. I$%a* #$'"a%#$/ #%" &4 #*$- %ha% -'"* "a* #% % %h%&'%h, %h %a" -'&% h'"* ha a**&* #%" % %h '%#$ h (1) # #%# %&' %ha% C%#$a 5'&&& a %h $& %h *#!'%* "% #$ 16H, %h-a*a%&a" '&& h a-%'a"" &!a#&* % %h #"* "#%* A$*& 5'&&& a%h " -"a#4a$% %h !&!&%, (2) '$%#" 1692, $ %h& !&$ -!%A$*& 5'&&& -"a#4* %h "% a h# $; (3) $%#%h%a$*#$/ %h !'&!&%*** a" C%#$a 5'&&& % Ma$'" 5'&&& a -'%* $ A!"2, 16H, #% a !&$%* & &/#%&a%#$ #%h %h R/#%& D* a"4%

%$ (10) a& "a%& $" $ F&'a& 27, 168H (TSN, !. 18, +a$'a& 6, 167);() #$ %h ** a" % Ma$'" 5'&&&, #% # %a%* %ha% h a!!a&* #$Pa&aa', R#@a", & A%%. + D. V#""$a h a a $%a& !'"#- #$MaEREFORE, %h *-##$ %h &!$*$% C'&% A!!a" # h& %

a#*. L% %h &-&* %h -a &4a$** % %h -'&% /#$ #%h#$%&'-%#$ % %h %a" -'&% % a"" %h !"a#$%# % -4!"% %h#& #*$-,% -&a4#$ %h *$*a$%= #%$, a$* % !&$% &'%%a" #*$-# %h *#&, a$* %h&a%& % *-#* %h -a a$.

SO ORDERED.

M"$-#>&&&a, P"a$a, R"a a$* 5'%#&&@, +&., JJ., -$-'&.


30/118

Tha$


31/118

"ECON 'J'"'ON

G.R. No. L-2#3 S""7" 23, 19$6

GENARO GOI, RU/INA P. 4('. DE :ILLANUE:A, :IOLA P.

:ILLANUE:A, OSCAR P. :ILLANUE:A, %ARINA P. :ILLANUE:A,:ERNA P. :ILLANUE:A, PRA;EDES P. :ILLANUE:A, JR., JOSEP. :ILLANUE:A, SA%UEL P. :ILLANUE:A, LOURDES P.

:ILLANUE:A, %ILAGROS P. :ILLANUE:A DEARRIETA, petitioners-appellants,

vs.

THE COURT O/ APPEALS '!( GASPAR :ICENTE, respondents-

appellees.

Am$rosio 3adilla aw 7ffice for petitioners-appellants.

!an Juan, Africa, Gonales < !an A"ustin aw 7ffice for

respondents-appellees.

/ERNAN, J.:

This is an appeal (! certiorari from the decision of the then Court of

Appeals in CA-*.1. No. 49%%-1 entitled,=Gaspar 6icente, 3laintiff-

Appellant, vs. Genaro Goni, et. al., #efendants-Appellants= as well as

from the resolution den!ing petitioners8 motion for reconsideration.

The factual (ac2drop is as follows:

The three $D haciendas 2nown as "an "e(astian, "arria and ulce

Nom(re de Faria situated in the Funicipalit! of Bais, Negros

Oriental, were originall! owned (! the Compania *eneral de Ta(acos

de &ilipinas >TABACALE1A?. "ometime in /G/, the late #ra0edes T.

Jillanueva, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, negotiated with

TABACALE1A for the purchase of said haciendas. 7owever, as he

did not have sufficient funds to pa! the price, Jillanueva with the

consent of TABACALE1A, offered to sell 7acienda "arria to one

"antiago Jillegas, who was later su(stituted (! oauin Jillegas.

Allegedl! (ecause TABACALE1A did not agree to the transaction

(etween Jillanueva and Jillegas, without a guarant! private


32/118

respondent *aspar Jicente stood as guarantor, for Jillegas in favor

of TABACALE1A. The guarantee was em(odied in a document

denominated as ;Escritura de Traspaso de Cuenta.; 1

Either (ecause the amount reali+ed from the transaction (etween

Jillanueva and Jillegas still fell short of the purchase price of thethree haciendas, or in consideration of the guarant! underta2en (!

private respondent Jicente, Jillanueva contracted or promised to sell

to the latter fields nos. $, G and $ of 7acienda ulce Nom(re de

Faria for the sum of #$,9%4.%%. This agreement was reduced to

writing and signed (! petitioner *enaro *oni as attorne!-in-fact of

Jillanueva, thus:

En consideracion a la garantia ue on *aspar Jicente

assume con la Cia. *ral. de Ta(acos de &ilipinas por el

saldo de on "antiago Jillegas de #G$,@$/.4@ asumido por

on oauin Jillegas el ue "u(scri(e #ra0edes T.

Jillanueva se compromete ceder es venta a on *aspar

Jicente los campos nos. $, G ! $ del plano de porcelario de

la 7acienda ulce Nom(re de Faria, en compra pro6ectada

de la Cia. *ral. de Ta(acos de &ilipinas. Estas campos

representan -/%-$@ hectares por valor de #$,9%4.%% ue

on *asper Jicente pagara directamente a #ra0edes T.

Jillanueva

Bais Central, Octu(re G, /G/.

&do. #ra0edes T. Jillanueva

#or: &do *enaro *oMi Apoderado 2

#rivate respondent Jicente thereafter advised TABACALE1A to de(it

from his account the amount of #$,9%4.%% as pa!ment for the

(alance of the purchase price. 7owever, as onl! the amount of

#,G%.G was actuall! needed to complete the purchase price, onl!

the latter amount was de(ited from private respondent8s account. The

difference was supposedl! paid (! private respondent to Jillanueva,

(ut as no receipt evidencing such pa!ment was presented in court,

this fact was disputed (! petitioners.


33/118

't is alleged (! petitioners that su(seuent to the e0ecution of the

contractpromise to sell, Jillanueva was a(le to raise funds (! selling

a propert! in A!ungon, Negros Oriental. 7e thus went to private

respondent Jicente for the purpose of rescinding the

contractpromise to sell 7owever, as the amount of #,G%.G had

alread! (een de(ited from private respondent8s account, it was

agreed that lots G and $ of the 7acienda ulce Nom(re de Faria

would merel! (e leased to private respondent Jicente for a period of

five @D !ears starting with crop-!ear /@%-@ at an annual rental of

@ of the gross income, said rent to (e deducted from the mone!

advanced (! private respondent and an! (alance owing to Jillanueva

would (e delivered (! Jicente together with the lots at the end of thestipulated period of lease.

On ecem(er %, /G/, TABACALE1A e0ecuted a formal deed of

sale covering the three haciendas in favor of Jillanueva. &ields Nos.

$, G and $ of the 7acienda ulce Nom(re de Faria were thereafter

registered in the name of Jillanueva under TCT No. T-G49% of the

1egister of eeds of Negros Oriental. The fields were li2ewisemortgaged (! Jillanueva to the 1eha(ilitation &inance Corporation

1&CD, later transferred to the #hilippine National Ban2 on ecem(er

, /@@, for a total inde(tedness of

#$$G,G%%.%%. 3

Feanwhile, &ields nos. G and $ were delivered to private respondent

Jicente after the /G/-/@% milling season in anuar! and &e(ruar!,/@%.

On une 4, /@%, Jillanueva e0ecuted a ;ocumento de la Jenta

efinitive; in favor of oauin Jillegas, covering Lot No. $G of the

Cadastral "urve! of Bais with an area of G9,4 suare meters,

more or less. 7acienda "arriaD. A supplemental instrument was later

e0ecuted (! Jillanueva in favor of Jillegas to include in the sale ofune 4, /@% the sugar uota of the land.

On Novem(er , /@, Jillanueva died. 'ntestate proceedings were

instituted on Novem(er G, /@ (efore the then Court of &irst

'nstance of Negros Oriental, doc2eted as "pecial Case No. 444.

Among the properties included in the inventor! su(mitted to the court


34/118

were fields nos. $, G and $ of 7acienda ulce Nom(re de Faria.

&ield no. $ with an area of hectare, GG ares and /@ centares was

listed as Lot no. 4$ of the inventor! while fields nos. $ and G, with

areas of $ hectares, 4@ ares and % centares, and hectare, / ares

and 9% centares, respectivel!, were included in Lot no. @4 of the

inventor!.

On Octo(er 4, /@G, the da! (efore the intestate proceedings were

ordered closed and the estate of the late #ra0edes Jillanueva

delivered to his heirs, private respondent Jicente instituted an action

for recover! of propert! and damages (efore the then Court of &irst

'nstance of Negros Oriental against petitioner *oMi in his capacit! as

administrator of the intestate estate of #ra0edes Jillanueva. 'n his

complaint doc2eted as Civil Case No. //%, private respondent

Jicente sought to recover field no. $ of the 7acienda ulce Nom(re

de Faria, (asing his entitlement thereto on the contractpromise to

sell e0ecuted (! the late #ra0edes Jillanueva in his favor on Octo(er

G, /G/. 7e li2ewise pra!ed (! wa! of attorne!8s fees and other

costs the sum of #,%%%.%% and for such other further relief which thecourt ma! deem 6ust and euita(le in the premises.

On Octo(er @, /@G, petitioner *oni as defendant in Civil Case No.

//%, filed an answer with counterclaim for accounting of the produce

of fields nos. G and $, as well as the surrerder thereof on une %,

/@@, the end of the fifth crop-!ear, plus moral damages in the sum of

#$%,%%%.%% and #$,%%%.%% as attorne!8s fees. After an answer to thecounter-claim had (een filed, private respondent Jicente amended

his complaint on "eptem(er , /@@, to include a pra!er for damages

representing the produce of field no. $ from /G/-@% until deliver!

thereof to him. An answer with counterclaim to the amended

complaint was dul! filed, and on April @, /@, private respondent

Jicente amended his complaint anew to include as parties-

defendants the heirs of the late #ra0edes Jillanueva.

On ul! $, /@4, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts,

agreeing, among others, on the costs of production and produce of

the three fields in uestion. The case thereafter proceeded to trial.

#laintiff presented two D witnesses: then part!-plaintiff *aspar


35/118

Jicente, himself, who over the o(6ection of therein defendants

testified on facts occurring (efore the death of #ra0edes Jillanueva,

and Epifanio Euio a cler2 of TABACALE1A Agenc! in the Bais

"ugar Central. efendants presented *enaro *oni, who testified on

the alleged ver(al lease agreement.

On ecem(er 9, /@/, the trial court rendered a decision ordering

therein defendants-heirs to deliver to *aspar Jicente field no $, to

e0ecute a formal deed of sale covering fields nos. $, G and $ in favor

of Jicente, to pa! the latter actual or compensator! damages in the

amount of # 9,%G.G9, representing @ of the total gross income of

field no. $ for crop-!ears /@%-@ to /@9-@/, and such other

amounts as ma! (e due from said field for the crop !ears su(seuent

to crop-!ear /@9-@/, until the field is delivered to Jicente, and to pa!

the sum of #,%%%.%% as attorne!8s fees plus costs. Therein

defendant *oMi was relieved of an! civil lia(ilit! for damages, either

personall! or as administrator of the estate. 5

Both parties appealed the decision to the then Court of Appeals< the

plaintiff from the portion awarding damages on a claim that he was

entitled to more, and defendants, from the entire decision.

On ecem(er @, /, the Court of Appeals promulgated its

decision, affirming that of the lower court, with the modification that

the amount of damages to (e paid (! defendant-heirs to the plaintiff

should (e the total net income from field no. $ from the crop !ear

/@%-@ until said field is finall! delivered to the plaintiff plus interest

thereon at the legal rate per annum. 6

#etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, (ut were denied the

relief sought in a resolution dated &e(ruar! /, /4. 7ence, the

present appeal (! certiorari where(! petitioners raise the following

uestions of law:

FAI 1E"#ONENT *A"#A1 J'CENTE TE"T'&I ON

FATTE1" O& &ACT OCC)11'N* BE&O1E T7E EAT7

O& #1AEE" T. J'LLAN)EJA, 37'C7 CON"T'T)TE" A

CLA'F O1 EFAN )#ON 7'" E"TATE. 'N J'OLAT'ON


36/118

O& 1)LE $, "EC, , #A1. CD, NO3 1)LE $%, "EC.

% #A1. ADH

FAI NOT A 31'TTEN #1OF'"E TO "ELL ATE

OCTOBE1 G,/G/ BE NOJATE 'NTO A JE1BAL

A*1EEFENT O& LEA"E )1'N* T7E L'&ET'FE O& T7E#1OF'""O1, 37O"E EAT7 OCC)11E ON

NOJEFBE1 , /@, BI &ACT" AN C'1C)F"TANCE"

")B"TANT'ATE BI COF#ETENT O1AL EJ'ENCE 'N

T7'" CA"EH

"7O)L T7E #1OF'"EE 'N A #1OF'"E TO "ELL, 37O

#A' #,G%.G 37'C7 3A" TO BE ACCO)NTE ANTO BE C1E'TE A" 1ENTAL" A&TE1 &'JE @D IEA1"

O& LEA"E, 37O 'N 7'" O1'*'NAL COF#LA'NT ' NOT

ALLE*E NO1 #1OJE AFA*E", ECE#T T7E ")F O&

#,%%%.%% A" ATTO1NEI8" &EE", 1ECE'JE A

)*FENT &O1 AFA*E" 'N T7E AFO)NT O&

#4G,%@.$@ 37'C7 CON"'"T" O& #$4,. #L)"

LE*AL 'NTE1E"T &O1 T7E C1O# IEA1" /@%-@ TO

/@9-@/ AN &O1 #$,G.9 TO #G,$4G.49 &O1 EJE1I

C1O# IEA1 ")B"EP)ENT TO /@9-@/ #L)"

'NTE1E"TH #

3e find that neither the trial nor appellate court erred in ruling for the

admissi(ilit! in evidence of private respondent Jicente8s testimon!.

)nder ordinar! circumstances, private respondent Jicente $ would (e disualified(! reason of interest from testif!ing as to an! matter of fact occurring (efore the death of #ra0edes T. Jillanueva, such disualification (eing anchored on "ection

%aD of 1ule $%, commonl! 2nown as the "urvivorship isualification 1ule or ead Fan "tatute, which provides as follows:

"ection %. isualification (! reason of interest or

relationship.-The following persons cannot testif! as to

matters in which the! are interested, directl! or indirectl!, as

herein enumerated:

aD #arties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in

whose (ehalf a case is prosecuted, against an e0ecutor or

administrator or other representative of a deceased person,

or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or

demand against the estate of such deceased person or


37/118

against such person of unsound mind, cannot testif! as to

an! matter of fact occurring (efore the death of such

deceased person or (efore such person (ecame of unsound

mind.

The o(6ect and purpose of the rule is to guard against the temptationto give false testimon! in regard to the transaction in uestion on the

part of the surviving part! and further to put the two parties to a suit

upon terms of eualit! in regard to the opportunit! of giving

testimon!. 9 't is designed to close the lips of the part! plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the part! defendant, in order to remove from thesurviving part! the temptation to falsehood and the possi(ilit! of fictitious claims against the deceased.

10

The case at (ar, although instituted against the heirs of #ra0edesJillanueva after the estate of the latter had (een distri(uted to them,

remains within the am(it of the protection. The reason is that the

defendants-heirs are properl! the ;representatives; of the deceased,

not onl! (ecause the! succeeded to the decedent8s right (! descent

or operation of law, (ut more importantl! (ecause the! are so placed

in litigation that the! are called on to defend which the! have o(tained

from the deceased and ma2e the defense which the deceased might

have made if living, or to esta(lish a claim which deceased might

have (een interested to esta(lish, if living. 11

"uch protection, however, was effectivel! waived when counsel for

petitioners cross-e0amined private respondent Jicente. ;A waiver

occurs when plaintiff8s deposition is ta2en (! the representative of the

estate or when counsel for the representative cross-e0amined the

plaintiff as to matters occurring during deceased8s lifetime. 12 't must further (eo(served that petitioners presented a counterclaim against private respondent Jicente. 3hen Jicente thus too2 the witness stand, it was in a dual capacit! as

plaintiff in the action for recover! of propert! and as defendant in the counterclaim for accounting and surrender of fields nos. G and $. Evidentl!, as defendant in

the counterclaim, he was not disualified from testif!ing as to matters of fact occurring (efore the death of #ra0edes Jillanueva, said action not having (een

(rought against, (ut (! the estate or representatives of the estatedeceased person.

Li2ewise, under a great ma6orit! of statutes, the adverse part! is

competent to testif! to transactions or communications with the

deceased or incompetent person which were made with an agent ofsuch person in cases in which the agent is still alive and competent to

testif!. But the testimon! of the adverse part! must (e confined to

those transactions or communications which were had with the

agent. 13 The contractpromise to sell under consideration was signed (! petit ioner *oMi as attorne!-in-fact apoderadoD of #ra0edes Jillanueva. 7e waspriv! to the circumstances surrounding the e0ecution of such contract and therefore could either confirm or den! an! allegations made (! private respondent

Jicente with respect to said contract. The ineualit! or in6ustice sought to (e avoided (! "ection %aD of 1ule $%, where one of the parties no longer has the

opportunit! to either confirm or re(ut the testimon! of the other (ecause death has permanentl! sealed the former8s lips, does not actuall! e0ist in the case at (ar,


38/118

for the reason that petitioner *oMi could and did not negate the (inding effect of the contractpromise to sell. Thus, while admitting the e0istence of the said

contractpromise to sell, petitioner *oMi testified that the same was su(seuentl! novated into a ver(al contract of lease over fields nos. G and $ of the 7acienda

ulce Nom(re de Faria.

Novation ta2es place when the o(6ect or principal condition of an

o(ligation is changed or altered. 1 'n order, however, that an o(ligation ma! (e e0tinguished (! another whichsu(stitutes the same, it is imperative that it (e so declared in uneuivocal terms, or that the old and the new o(ligations (e on ever! point incompati(le with each

other.15

;Novation is never presumed. 't must (e esta(lished that the old and the new contracts are incompati(le in all points, or that the will to novate appear (!

e0press agreement of the parties or in acts of euivalent import.16

The novation of the written contractpromise to sell into a ver(al

agreement of lease was clearl! and convincingl! proven not onl! (!

the testimon! of petitioner *oMi, (ut li2ewise (! the acts and conduct

of the parties su(seuent to the e0ecution of the contractpromise to

sell. Thus, after the milling season of crop !ear /G/-@%, onl! fields

nos. G and $ were delivered to private respondent Jicente. &ields

nos. $, G and $ were su(seuentl! registered in Jillanueva8s name

and mortgaged with the 1&C. Jillanueva li2ewise e0ecuted a deed of

sale covering 7acienda "arria in favor of oauin Jillegas. All these

were 2nown to private respondent Jicente, !et he did not ta2e an!

steps toward asserting andor protecting his claim over fields nos. $,

G and $ either (! demanding during the lifetime of Jillanueva thatthe latter e0ecute a similar document in his favor, or causing notice of

his adverse claim to (e annotated on the certificate of title of said lots.

'f it were true that he made demands on Jillanueva for the surrender

of field no. $ as well as the e0ecution of the corresponding deed of

sale, he should have, upon refusal of the latter to do so, immediatel!

or within a reasona(le time thereafter, instituted an action for

recover!, or as previousl! o(served, caused his adverse claim to (eannotated on the certificate of title. Considering that field no. $,

containing an area of three $D hectares, 4@ ares and % centares, is

the (iggest among the three lots, an ordinar! prudent man would

have ta2en these steps if he honestl! (elieved he had an! right

thereto. Iet, private respondent Jicente did neither. 'n fact such

inaction persisted even during the pendenc! of the intestate

proceedings wherein he could have readil! intervened to see2

e0clusion of fields nos. $, G and $ from the inventor! of properties of

the late #ra0edes Jillanueva.

The reason given (! private respondent Jicente that field no. $ was

not delivered to him together with fields nos. G and $ (ecause there


39/118

were small sugar cane growing on said field at that time (elonging to

TABACALE1A, might (e ta2en as a plausi(le e0planation wh! he

could not ta2e immediate possession of lot no. $, (ut it certainl! could

not e0plain wh! it too2 him four !ears (efore instituting an action in

court, and ver! convenientl!, as petitioners noted, after Jillanueva

had died and at the time when the ver(al contract of lease was a(out

to e0pire.

Both the trial and appellate courts chose to (elieve in the

contractpromise to sell rather than the lease agreement, simpl!

(ecause the former had (een reduced to writing, while the latter was

merel! ver(al. 't must (e o(served, though, that the contractpromise

to sell was signed (! petitioner *oMi as attorne!-in-fact of the late

#ra0edes Jillanueva, an indication, to our mind, that final

arrangements were made (! petitioner *oMi in the a(sence of

Jillanueva. 't was therefore natural for private respondent Jicente to

have demanded that the agreement (e in writing to erase an! dou(t

of its (inding effect upon Jillanueva. On the other hand, the ver(al

lease agreement was negotiated (! and (etween Jillanueva andprivate respondent Jicente themselves. Being close friends and

relatives 1# it can (e safel! assumed that the! did not find it necessar! to reduce the same into writing.

'n re6ecting petitioners8 contention respecting the ver(al lease

agreement, the appellate court put much weight on the failure of

petitioners to demand an accounting of the produce of fields nos. G

and $ from /@% to /@G, when the action for recover! of propert!was filed. "uch failure was satisfactoril! e0plained (! petitioners in

their motion for reconsideration filed (efore the then Court of Appeals,

in this manner:

... Fr. *enaro *oni is also a farmer (! profession and that

there was no need for him to demand a !earl! accounting of

the total production (ecause the ver(al lease agreementwas for a term of @ !ears. The defendant Fr. *enaro *oni

as a sugar planter has alread! full 2nowledge as to the

annual income of said lots nos. G and $, and since there

was the amount of #,G%.@ to (e liuidated, said

defendant never deemed it wise to demand such a !earl!


40/118

accounting. 't was onl! after or (efore the e0piration of the @

!ear lease that said defendant demanded the accounting

from the herein plaintiff regarding the production of the lots

that were then leased to him.

't is the custom among the sugar planters in this localit! thatthe Lessee usuall! demands an advance amount to cover

the rental for the period of the lease, and the demand of an

accounting will (e onl! made after the e0piration of the

lease period. 't was adduced during the trial that the amount

of #,G%.4@ was considered as an advance rental of the

lots which was leased to the #laintiff, lots nos. G and $< so

we hum(l! (elieve that there was no necessit! on the part

of defendant Fr. *enaro *oMi to ma2e a !earl! demand for

an accounting for the total production of parcels leased to

the plaintiff. 1$

#etitioners, having clearl! and sufficientl! shown that the

contractpromise to sell was su(seuentl! novated into a ver(al lease

agreement, it follows that the! are entitled to a favora(le decision on

their counterclaim. iscussion of the third issue raised therefore

(ecomes unnecessar!.

37E1E&O1E, the decision appealed from is here(! reversed. The

6udicial administrator of the estate of private respondent *aspar

Jicente andor his successors-in-interest are here(! ordered to: aD

surrender possession of fields nos. G and $ of the 7acienda ulce

Nom(re de Faria to petitioners< (D render an accounting of the

produce of said fields for the period (eginning crop-!ear /@%-@ until

complete possession thereof shall have (een delivered to petitioners<

and cD to pa! the corresponding annual rent for the said fields in an

amount euivalent to @ of the gross produce of said fields, for the

periods (eginning crop-!ear /@%-@ until said fields shall have (eensurrendered to petitioners, deducting from the amount due petitioners

the sum of #,G%.G advanced (! private respondent *aspar

Jicente.

"O O1E1E.


41/118

/eria :Chairman;, Alampay, Gutierre, Jr., and 3aras, JJ., concur,

/oo!o"

par. , "tipulation of &acts, 1ecord on Appeal p. 4G,1ollo.

Anne0 ;A;, #etition, p. %, 1ollo.

$ par. 4, "tipulation of &acts, 1ecord on Appeal p. 4$,

1ollo.

G 1ecord on Appeal pp. G4-G/, 1ollo.

@ 1ecord on Appeal, pp. 4@-99, 1ollo.

Anne0 ;A ;, #etition, pp. G-G, 1ollo.

4 #etition, pp. -, 1ollo.

9 #rivate respondent *aspar Jicente died during thependenc! of this appeal. 7e is su(stituted (! the 6udicial

administrator of his estate, 'gnacio Jicente.

/ ones Commentaries on Evidence, Jol @, p. GG/.

% 'card v. Fasigan et. al., 4 #hil. G/.

/4 C..". G9.

&rancisco, Commentaries on the 1evised 1ules of Court,

Jol. J'', pp. $4-$9.

$ ones Commentaries on Evidence, supra, p. G$/4.

G Art. /, Civil Code of the #hilippines.

@ Art. /, '(id.

Fartine+ v. Cavives, @ #hiL @9: Tiu "uico v. 7a(ana.

G@ #hil. 4%4< Asia Ban2ing Corp. v. Lacson Compan!, 'nc.,

G9 #hil. G9.


42/118

4 p. . 1ollo.

9 p. /, 1ollo.


43/118

T7'1 'J'"'ON

G.R. No. #306 %' 16, 1992

ENRI)UE RA&ON, petitioner,vs.

INTER%EDIATE APPELLATE COURT '!( :ICENTE 8. CHUIDIAN,! ''y ' A(7!'o o+ " E'" o+ " D""'"(

JUAN T. CHUIDIAN, respondents.

G.R. No. #315 %' 16, 1992

:ICENTE 8. CHUIDIAN, petitioner,vs.

INTER%EDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ENRI)UE RA&0N, '!( E.RA&ON, INC., respondents.

GUTIERRE&, JR., J.:

The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers on the

ownership of ,@%% shares of stoc2 in E. 1a+on, 'nc. covered (!

"toc2 Certificate No. %%$ issued on April $, / and registered

under the name of uan T. Chuidian in the (oo2s of the corporation.

The then Court of &irst 'nstance of Fanila, now 1egional Trial Court

of Fanila, declared that Enriue 1a+on, the petitioner in *.1. No.

4G$% is the owner of the said shares of stoc2. The then 'ntermediate

Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial

court8s decision and ruled that uan T. Chuidian, the deceased father

of petitioner Jicente B. Chuidian in *.1. No. 4G$@ is the owner of

the shares of stoc2. Both parties filed separate motions for

reconsideration. Enriue 1a+on wanted the appellate court8s decisionreversed and the trial court8s decision affirmed while Jicente Chuidian

as2ed that all cash and stoc2 dividends and all the pre-emptive rights

accruing to the ,@%% shares of stoc2 (e ordered delivered to him.

The appellate court denied (oth motions. 7ence, these petitions.

The relevant Antecedent facts are as follows:


44/118

'n his complaint filed on une /, /4, and amended on

Novem(er , /4, Jicente B. Chuidian pra!ed that

defendants Enriue B. 1a+on, E. 1a+on, 'nc., *eronimo

Jelasco, &rancisco de Bor6a, ose &rancisco, Alfredo B. de

Leon, r., *a(riel Llamas and Luis F. de 1a+on (e ordered

to deliver certificates of stoc2s representing the

shareholdings of the deceased uan T. Chuidian in the E.

1a+on, 'nc. with a pra!er for an order to restrain the

defendants from disposing of the said shares of stoc2, for a

writ of preliminar! attachment v. properties of defendants

having possession of shares of stoc2 and for receivership of

the properties of defendant corporation . . .

000 000 000

'n their answer filed on une 9, /4$, defendants alleged

that all the shares of stoc2 in the name of stoc2holders of

record of the corporation were full! paid for (! defendant,

1a+on< that said shares are su(6ect to the agreement

(etween defendants and incorporators< that the shares of

stoc2 were actuall! owned and remained in the possession

of 1a+on. Appellees also alleged . . . that neither the late

uan T. Chuidian nor the appellant had paid an! amount

whatsoever for the ,@%% shares of stoc2 in uestion . . .

000 000 000

The evidence of the plaintiff shown that he is the

administrator of the intestate estate of uan Telesforo

Chuidian in "pecial #roceedings No. 4%@G, Court of &irst

'nstance of Fanila.

"ometime in /, Enriue 1a+on organi+ed the E. 1a+on,

'nc. for the purpose of (idding for the arrastre services in"outh 7ar(or, Fanila. The incorporators consisted of

Enriue 1a+on, Enriue Jalles, Luisa F. de 1a+on, ose

Tuason, r., Jictor Lim, ose &. Castro and "alvador #ere+

de Tagle.


45/118

On April $, /, stoc2 certificate No. %%$ for ,@%% shares

of stoc2 of defendant corporation was issued in the name of

uan T. Chuidian.

On the (asis of the ,@%% shares of stoc2, the late uan T.

Chuidian and after him, the plaintiff-appellant, were electedas directors of E. 1a+on, 'nc. Both of them actuall! served

and were paid compensation as directors of E. 1a+on, 'nc.

&rom the time the certificate of stoc2 was issued on April

/ up to April /4, Enriue 1a+on had not uestioned

the ownership (! uan T. Chuidian of the shares of stoc2 in

uestion and had not (rought an! action to have thecertificate of stoc2 over the said shares cancelled.

The certificate of stoc2 was in the possession of defendant

1a+on who refused to deliver said shares to the plaintiff,

until the same was surrendered (! defendant 1a+on and

deposited in a safet! (o0 in #hilippine Ban2 of Commerce.

efendants allege that after organi+ing the E. 1a+on, 'nc.,

Enriue 1a+on distri(uted shares of stoc2 previousl! placed

in the names of the withdrawing nominal incorporators to

some friends including uan T. Chuidian

"toc2 Certificate No. %%$ covering ,@%% shares of stoc2

upon instruction of the late Chuidian on April $, /9 was

personall! delivered (! Chuidian on ul! , / to the

Corporate "ecretar! of Attorne! "ilverio B. de Leon who

was himself an associate of the Chuidian Law Office E0hs.

C D. "ince then, Enriue 1a+on was in possession of

said stoc2 certificate even during the lifetime of the late

Chuidian, from the time the late Chuidian delivered the said

stoc2 certificate to defendant 1a+on until the time sic D ofdefendant 1a+on. B! agreement of the parties sic D

delivered it for deposit with the (an2 under the 6oint custod!

of the parties as confirmed (! the trial court in its order of

August 4, /4.


46/118

Thus, the ,@%% shares of stoo2 under "toc2 Certificate No.

%%$ were delivered (! the late Chuidian to Enriue (ecause

it was the latter who paid for all the su(scription on the

shares of stoc2 in the defendant corporation and the

understanding was that he defendant 1a+onD was the

owner of the said shares of stoc2 and was to have

possession thereof until such time as he was paid therefor

(! the other nominal incorporatorsstoc2holders T"N., pp.

G, 9, %, G-@, @-, 9-$, $-$, %, -9, ul! ,

/9%, E0hs. ;C;, ;;, ;$; ;G;D. %o&&o 9 4G$%, pp. -

9D

'n *.1. No. 4G$%, petitioner Enriue 1a+on assails the appellate

court8s decision on its alleged misapplication of the dead man8s

statute rule under "ection %aD 1ule $% of the 1ules of Court.

According to him, the ;dead man8s statute; rule is not applica(le to

the instant case. Foreover, the private respondent, as plaintiff in the

case did not o(6ect to his oral testimon! regarding the oral agreement

(etween him and the deceased uan T. Chuidian that the ownershipof the shares of stoc2 was actuall! vested in the petitioner unless the

deceased opted to pa! the same< and that the petitioner was

su(6ected to a rigid cross e0amination regarding such testimon!.

"ection %aD 1ule $% of the 1ules of Court "ection $ of the

1evised 1ules on EvidenceD "tates:

"ec. %. #is8ualification $y reason of interest or

relationship = The following persons cannot testif! as to

matters in which the! are interested directl! or indirectl!, as

herein enumerated.

aD #arties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in

whose (ehalf a case is prosecuted, a"ainst an e)ecutor

or

administrator

or other representative of a deceased person,

or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or

demand a"ainst the estate of such deceased person or

against such person of unsound mind, cannot testif! as to

an! matter of fact accruing (efore the death of such


47/118

deceased person or (efore such person (ecame of unsound

mind.; Emphasis suppliedD

000 000 000

The purpose of the rule has (een e0plained (! this Court in this wise:

The reason for the rule is that if persons having a claim

against the estate of the deceased or his properties were

allowed to testif! as to the supposed statements made (!

him deceased personD, man! would (e tempted to falsel!

impute statements to deceased persons as the latter can no

longer den! or refute them, thus un6ustl! su(6ecting theirproperties or rights to false or unscrupulous claims or

demands. The purpose of the law is to ;guard against the

temptation to give false testimon! in regard to the

transaction in uestion on the part of the surviving part!.;

Tongco v. Jian+on, @% #hil. /9< *o Chi *un, et al. v. Co

Cho, et al., >/@@?D

The rule, however, delimits the prohi(ition it contemplates in that it is

applica(le to a case a"ainst

the administrator or its representative of

an estate upon a claim a"ainst the estate of the deceased person.

"ee Tongco v. Jian+on, @% #hil. /9 >/4?D

'n the instant case, the testimon! e0cluded (! the appellate court is

that of the defendant petitioner hereinD to the affect that the late uan

Chuidian, the father of private respondent Jicente Chuidian, the

administrator of the estate of uan ChuidianD and the defendant

agreed in the lifetime of uan Chuidian that the ,@%% shares of stoc2

in E. 1a+on, 'nc. are actuall! owned (! the defendant unless the

deceased uan Chuidian opted to pa! the same which never

happened. The case was filed (! the administrator

of the estate of

the late uan Chuidian to recover shares of stoc2 in E. 1a+on, 'nc.allegedl! owned (! the late uan T. Chuidian.

't is clear, therefore, that the testimon! of the petitioner is not within

the prohi(ition of the rule. The case was not filed a"ainst the


48/118

administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims a"ainst the

estate.

&urthermore, the records show that the private respondent never

o(6ected to the testimon! of the petitioner as regards the true nature

of his transaction with the late elder Chuidian. The petitioner8stestimon! was su(6ect to cross-e0amination (! the private

respondent8s counsel. 7ence, g

evidence cases for feb. 05

Documents