Maxilom v. v. Tabo Tabotabo tabo
G.R. No. L-3505 L-3505
1 of 3
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-3505 December 20, 1907 ARCADO MA!LOM, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. GAUDENCO TA"OTA"O, #$ e%ec&'or o( ')e e$'#'e o( D*e+o T#bo'#bo, ece#$e, defendant-appellant.
Jose A. Clarin, for appellant. Joaquin H. Junquera, for appellee. ONSON, J.:
Some time in the yea !"#! one $austo %abotabo died, leavin& cetain assets and liabilities. 'n the (!st day of 'ctobe, !"#!, )ie&o %abotabo, fathe of $austo %abotabo, upon petition, *as declaed the univesal hei of the said $austo %abotabo, and accepted the inheitance pue and simple, ta+in& possession of the same. ate the said )ie&o %abotabo died in the Povince of Cebu, *ithout havin& the liabilities of the said deceased $austo %abotabo. lawphil.net ate at e the cou cout t appo appoint inted ed com commis missio sione ness in the est estate ate of the sai said d )ie )ie&o &o %ab abota otabo, bo, in acc accod odance ance *ith the povisions of section " of the Code of Pocedue in Civil Actions. %his commission co mmission *as duly o&anied fo the pupose of considein& claims a&ainst the estate of the said )ie&o %abotabo. %he plaintiff heein pesented a claim of indebtedness befoe the said commission fo the sum of !,#(./0 pesos, Me1ican cuency, *hich claim the said commission allo*ed a&ainst the said estate. $om this decision of the said commission the e1ecuto appealed to the Cout of $ist 2nstance. %he case *as duly tied in the Cout of $ist 2nstance, *hich cout affimed the decision of the said commission and allo*ed the claim a&ainst the estate of the said )ie&o %abotabo. $om this decision of the Cout of $ist 2nstance, the defendant appealed to this cout and made the follo*in& assi&nment of eos3 $ist. %he cout committed an eo pemittin& the plaintiff, Acadio Ma1ilom, to testify as a *itness duin& the tial of said cause. Second. %he cout committed an eo in not declain& that the action of the plaintiff *as pescibed. lawphil.net %hid. %he cout committed an eo in endein& a a decision a&ainst the defendant, basin& the same upon the declaation of the said plaintiff, Acadio Acadio Ma1ilom. 4ith efeence to the fist above-noted assi&nment of eo, the defendant and appellant elies upon the povisions of section /5/ of the Code of Pocedue in Civil Actions. Said section, amon& othe thin&s, povides that the follo*in& pesons can not be *itnesses3 0. Paties o assi&nos of paties to an action o poceedin&, o pesons in *hose behalf an action o poceedin& is posecuted, a&ainst an e1ecuto o administato o othe epesentative of a deceased dec eased peson, o a&ainst a peson of unsound mind, upon a claim o demand a&ainst the estate of such deceased peson o a&ainst such peson of unsound mind, can not testify as to any matte of fact occuin& befoe the death of such deceased peson o befoe such peson became of unsound mind. %he defendant and appellant failed to ma+e a motion fo a ne* tial in the lo*e cout6 theefoe *e can not e1amine the evidence fo the pupose of ascetainin& *hethe o not the facts set out in the decision of the cout ae
Maxilom v. Tabotabo
G.R. No. L-3505
2 of 3
sustained by such evidence6 but, in vie* of the fact that the above assi&nment of eo is based upon the admissibility of cetain testimony offeed by *itnesses, to *hich ob7ection *as made and an e1ception ta+en duin& the tial, *e ae pemitted to e1amine such testimony fo the pupose of ascetainin& *hethe the testimony offeed *as of a class *hich is pohibited by said paa&aph 0 of section /5/. )uin& the tial of the cause of the lo*e cout the plaintiff appeaed as a *itness and *as as+ed cetain 8uestions concenin& an open account 9E1hibit B: e1istin& bet*een the plaintiff and the deceased $austo %abotabo pio to the latte;s death. %he defendant ob7ected to this testimony upon the theoy that said paa&aph 0 of section /5/ pohibited the said plaintiff fom testifyin& concenin& the claim a&ainst the estate of the deceased, because the action *as posecuted a&ainst the e1ecuto o administato of such deceased peson. %he lo*e cout oveuled this ob7ection, the defendant e1cepted, and no* elies upon said e1ception fo the pupose of havin& the decision of the lo*e cout evesed. 2t is clea fom an e1amination of the ecod that the plaintiff *as a paty to an action a&ainst an e1ecuto o administato of a deceased peson upon a claim a&ainst the estate of such deceased peson. 2t seems clea also fom said section /5/ that he *as absolutely pohibited fom bein& a *itness in said action fo the pupose of &ivin& testimony concenin& such claim o demand. 4e ae of the opinion and so hold that said paa&aph 0 of section /5/ absolutely pohibits a paty to an action a&ainst an e1ecuto o administato of a deceased peson fom testifyin& to any matte of fact occuin& befoe the death of such deceased peson, upon a claim o demand a&ainst the estate of such deceased peson. %he pesent case vey clealy e1emplifies the *isdom of the povisions of said paa&aph 0. Said E1hibit B epesented a settlement of the accounts bet*een the plaintiff and the said $austo %abotabo, in *hich they both a&eed on the !5th day of Mach, !5"", o about t*o yeas befoe the death of the said $austo %abotabo. %his account *as si&ned by both the plaintiff heein and the deceased $austo %abotabo, sho*in& upon its face that thee *as due at that time fom $austo %abotabo to the plaintiff heein the sum of /!(./0 pesos, Me1ican. Not*ithstandin& this settlement, made by the plaintiff and the said deceased $austo %abotabo, seveal yeas afte, in the yea !"#, the plaintiff pesented a claim a&ainst the estate of the deceased fo the sum of !,#(./0 pesos, Me1ican cuency, alle&in& and attemptin& to pove that cedits to the amount of 0<# pesos, Me1ican cuency, *hich enteed into the settlement of the said accounts made on the !5th day of Mach, !5"", and neve, in fact, been eceived, and that theefoe instead of thee bein& due fom the said $austo %abotabo the sum of /!(./0 pesos, thee *as actually due the sum of !,#(./0 pesos. 2f testimony of the chaacte offeed by the plaintiff should be allo*ed, then all sots of fictitious claims mi&ht be pesented and allo*ed by desi&nin& pesons, *ithout any potection *hateve on the pat of the estate of the deceased peson. Povisions simila to the aticle above 8uoted have been adopted in pactically all of the States of the =nited States. Aticle !55# of the Code of Pocedue of Califonia is vey simila in its tems to the povisions of said section /5/. %he supeme cout of Califonia has held many times, unde the section of the code of Califonia, that >Paties to an action a&ainst the estate an e1ecuto o administato, upon a claim o demand a&ainst the estate of deceased pesons,> can not be witnesses. 9Blood vs. $aiban+s, <# Cal., ?(#.: 2n the vey ealy histoy of the common la* paties inteested in actions and poceedin&s *ee pohibited fom &ivin& testimony duin& the tial of said actions, o poceedin&s. %he theoy of this oi&inal dis8ualification *as that pesons inteested *ee li+ely to bea false *itness. on& e1peience ho*eve, has demonstated that this ule *o+ed &eate hadship than &ood. ibeal ules fo coss-e1amination have made it possible to disclose in the pesence of the cout *hethe o not inteested *itnesses *ee actually falsifyin&. @o*eve, the oi&inal common la* ule is still in foce in the ma7oity of the states of the =nited States in actions *hee the advese paty is
Maxilom v. Tabotabo
G.R. No. L-3505
3 of 3
deceased. As *as said by Bic+ell, chief 7ustice, in the case of ouis vs. Easton 9<# Ala., ?0!:, in discussin& this same 8uestion, >2f death has closed the lips of one paty, the policy of the la* is to close the lips of the othe.> 4ith efeence to the second above-noted assi&nment of eo, the ob7ection that the claim pesented b y the plaintiff *as pescibed, not havin& been aised in the lo*e cout, it can not be aised hee. 9)omin&o vs. 'soio, 0 Phil. Rep., ?#<.: 4ith efeence to the thid above-noted assi&nment of eo, *e ae of the opinion, fo the easons stated in the discussion of the fist above-noted assi&nment, of eo, that the lo*e cout eed in endein& a 7ud&ment a&ainst the defendant based upon the testimony of the plaintiff Acadio Ma1ilom. $o all of the foe&oin& easons, the 7ud&ment of the lo*e cout is heeby evesed and fo the eason that the cout committed an eo in admittin& the testimony of the plaintiff contay to the povisions of paa&aph 0 of section /5/, and believin& that but fo this eo the plaintiff mi&ht have pesented othe poof in suppot of his claim, the cause is heeby emanded to the cout belo*, odein& that a ne* tial be &anted in costs, it is so o deed. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concu.
