Joaquin vs. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257, 269- 270)
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-5426
May 29, 1953
RAMON JOAQUIN, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO, respondent.
Agrava, Peralta & Agrava for petitioner. petitioner. Leonardo Abola for respondent. respondent. TUASON, J.
This three proceedings was instituted in the Court of irst !nstance of Manila in the su""ar# settle"ent of states of $oa%uin Navarro, &r., his wife Angela $oa%uin de Navarro, $oa%u in Navarro, $r., $r., and Pilar Navarro, deceased. All of the" having been heard 'ointl#, 'ointl#, $udge Rafael A"paro handed down a single decision which was appealed to the Court of Appeals, whose decision, "odif#ing that the Court of irst !nstance, in turn was elevated to the &upre"e Court for review. The "ain %uestion represented in the first two courts related to the se%uence of the deaths of $oa%uin Navarro, &r., his wife, and their children, all of who" were (illed in the "assacre of civilians b# $apanese troops in Manila in ebruar# )*+. The trial court found the deaths of o f this persons to have accurred in this order- )st. The Navarro girls, girls, na"ed Pilar, Concepcion and Natividad /nd. $oa%uin Navarro, $r. $r. 0rd. Angela $oa%uin de Navarro, and +th, $oa%uin Navarro, &r. The Court of Appeals concurred with the trial court e1cept that, with regard to Angela $oa%uin de Navarro and $oa%uin Navarro, $r., the latter was declared to have survived his "other. !t is this "odification of the lower court2s finding which is now being contested b# the petitioner. The i"portance of the %uestion whether Angela $oa%uin de Navarro died before $oa%uin Navarro, $r., $r., or vice versa, lies in the fact that it radicall# affects affects the rights of succession of Ra"on $oa%uin, the present petitioner who was an ac(nowledged natural child of Angela $oa%uin and adopted child of the deceased spouses, and Antonio C. Navarro, respondent, son of $oa%uin Navarro, &r. b# first first "arriage. The facts, which is not disputed, are outlined in the state"ent in the decision of the Court of Appeals as follows34n ebruar# 5, )*+, while the battle for the liberation of Manila was raging, the spouses $oa%uin Navarro, &r. and Angela $oa%uin, together with their three daughters, Pilar, Concepcion,
and Natividad, and their son $oa%uin Navarro, $r., and the latter2s wife, Adela Conde, sought refuge in the ground floor of the building (nown as the 6er"an Club, at the corner of &an Marcelino and &an 7uis &treets of this Cit#. 8uring their sta#, the building was pac(ed with refugees, shells were e1ploding around, and the Club was set on fire. &i"ultaneousl#, the $apanese started shooting at the people inside the building, especiall# those who were tr#ing to escape. The three daughters were hit and fell of the ground near the entrance and $oa%uin Navarro, &r., and his son decided to abandon the pre"ises to see( a safer heaven. The# could not convince Angela $oa%uin who refused to 'oin the" and son $oa%uin Navarro, &r., his son, $oa%uin Navarro, $r., and the latter2s wife, Angela Conde, and a friend and for"er neighbor, rancisco 7ope9, dashed out of the burning edifice. As the# ca"e out, $oa%uin Navarro, $r. was shot in the head b# a $apanese soldier and i""ediatel# dropped. The o thers la# flat on the ground in front of the Club pre"ises to avoid the bullets. Minutes later, the 6er"an Club, alread# on fire, collapsed, trapping "an# people inside, presu"abl# including Angela $oa%uin. 3$oa%uin Navarro, &r., Mrs. $oa%uin Navarro, $r., and rancisco 7ope9 "anaged to reach an air raid shelter nearb#, the sta#ed there about three da#s, until ebruar# ):, )*), when the# were forced to leave the shelter be; cause the shelling tore it open. The# flied toward the &t. Theresa Acade"# in &an Marcelino &treet, but unfortunatel# "et $apanese Patrols, who fired at the refugees, (illing $oa%uin Navarro, &r., and his daughter;in;law. 3At the ti"e of the "asaccre, $oa%uin Navarro, &r. was aged <: his wife Angela $oa%uin was about 5< #ears old $oa%uin Navarro, $r., about 0: Pilar Navarro was two or three #ears older than her brother while the other sisters, Concepcion and Natividad Navarro # $oa%uin, were between /0 and /.3 The Court of Appeals2 finding were all ta(en fro" the testi"on# of rancisco 7ope9, who "iraculousl# survived the holocaust, and upon the" the Court of Appeals opined that, 3as between the "other Angela $oa%uin and the son $oa%uin Navarro, $r., the evidence of the survivorship is uncertain and insufficient3 and the statutor# presu"ption "ust be applied. The appellate Court2s reasoning for its conclusion is thus stated3!t does not re%uire argu"ent to show that survivorship cannot be established b# proof of the death of onl# one of the parties but that there "ust be ade%uate proof that one was alive when the other had alread# died. Now in this case before us, the testi"on# of the sole witness 7ope9 is to the effect that $oa%uin Navarro, $r. was shot and died shortl# after the living the 6er"an Club in the co"pan# of his father and the witness, and that the burning edified entirel# collapsed "inutes after the shooting of the son but there is not a scintilla of evidence, direct or circu"stantial, fro" which we "a# infer the condition of the "other, Angela $oa%uin, during the appreciable interval fro" the instant his son turned his bac( to her, to dash out to the Club, until he died. All we can glean fro" the evidence is that Angela $oa%uin was unhurt when her son left her to escape fro" the 6er"an Club but she could have died al"ost i""ediatel# after, fro" a variet# of causes. &he "ight have been shot b# the $apanese, li(e her daughters, (illed b# falling bea"s fro" the burning edifice, overco"e b# the fu"es, or fatall# struc( b# splinters fro" the e1ploding shells. =e cannot sa# for certain. No evidence is available on the point. All we can decide is that no one saw her alive after her son left her aside, and that there is no proof when she died. Clearl#, this circu"stance alone cannot support a finding that she died latter than her son,
and we are thus co"pelled to fall bac( upon the statutor# presu"ption. !n deed, it could be said that the purpose of the presu"ption of survivorship would b e precisel# to afford a solution to uncertainties li(e these. >ence the son $oa%uin Navarro, $r. aged 0:, "ust be dee"ed to have survived his "other, Angela $oa%uin, who was ad"ittedl# above 5: #ears of age ?Rule )/0, sec. 5*, subsec. ?ii@, Rules of Court@. 3The total lac( of evidence on how Angela $oa%uin died li(ewise disposes of the %uestion whether she and her deceased children perished in the sa"e cala"it#. There being no evidence to the contrar#, the onl# guide is the occasion of the deaths, which is identical for all of the" that battle for the liberation of Manila. A second reason is that the law, in declaring that those fallen in the sa"e battle are to be regarded as perishing in the sa"e cala"it#, could not overloo(ed that a variet# of cause of death can ? and usuall# do@ operate in the source of co"bats. 8uring the sa"e battle, so"e "a# die fro" wounds, other fro" gages, fire, or drowning. !t is clear that the law disregards episodic details, and treats the battle as an overall cause of death in appl#ing the presu"ption of survivorship. 3=e are thus led the conclusion that the order in which the "e"bers of the Navarro;$oa%uin fa"il# "et their end is as follows- first, the three daughters Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad then the "other Angela $oa%uin then the son $oa%uin Navarro, $r., and da#s later ?of which there is no doubt@, the father $oa%uin Navarro, &r.3 Much space in the briefs is ta(en in a discussion of whether section 00+?0<@ of Act No. )/*, now section 5* ?ii@ of Rule )/0 of the Rules of Court, has repealed article 00 of the civil code of )*, now article +0 of the New Civil Code. !t is the contention of the petitioner that it did not, and that on the assu"ption that there is total lac( of evidence, as the Court of Appeals said, then Angela $oa%uin and $oa%uin Navarro, $r. should, under article 00, be held to have died at the sa"e ti"e. The point is not of "uch if an# relevanc# and will be left open for the consideration when obsolute necessit# there for arises. =e sa# irrelevant because our opinion is that neither of the two provisions is applicable for the reasons to be presentl# set forth. Rule )/0, section 5* ?ii@ of the Revised Rules of Court, reads=hen two person perish in the sa"e cala"it#, such as wrec(, battle or conflagration, and it is not ?)@ shown who died first, and there are no ?/@ particular circu"stances fro" when it can be inferred, the survivorship is presu"ed fro" the probabilities resulting fro" the strength and ages of the se1es, according to the following rules111
111
111
Article 00 of the Civil Code of )* of the following tenor=henever a doubt arises as to which was the first to die to the two or "ore persons who would inherent one fro" the other, the persons who alleges the prior death of either "ust prove the allegation in the absence of proof the presu"ption shall be that the# died at the sa"e ti"e, and no trans"ission of rights fro" one to the other shall ta(e place.
Most provisions, as their language plainl# i"plies, are intended as a substitute for lac(s and so are not to be available when there are facts. =ith particular reference to section 5* ?ii@ of Rule )/0, 3the situation which it present is one in which the facts are not onl# un(nown but un(nowable. B# h#pothesis, there is no specific evidence as to the ti"e of death . . . .3 . . . it is assu"ed that no evidence can be produced. . . . &ince the facts are un(nown and un(nowable, the law "a# appl# the law of fairness appropriate to the different legal situation that arises.3 ?! =ig"ore on Evidence, )*+: ed., +0.@ !n In re =allace2s Estate, //: Pac. 50, which the Court of Appeals cited the applied with the respect to the deaths of the Navarro girls, pointing out that 3our rule is ta(en fro" the ourth 8ivision of sec. )*05 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,3 the &upre"e Court of California said=hen the statue spea(s of 3particular circu"stances fro" which it can be inferred3 that one died before the other it "eans that there are circu"stances fro" which the fact of death b# one before the other "a# be inferred as a relation conclusion fro" the facts proven. The statue does not "ean circu"stances which would shown, or which would tend to show, probabl# that one died before the other. 6rand 7odge A.4.=.=.vs. Miller, Cal. App. /, *5 Pac. //. =hen b# circu"stantial evidence alone, a part# see(s to prove a survivorship contrar# to the statutor# presu"ption, the circu"stances b# which it is sought to prove the survivorship "ust be such as are co"petent and sufficient when tested b# the general rules of evidence in civil cases. The inference of survivorship cannot rest upon "ere sur"ise, speculation, or con'ecture. As was said in 6rand 7odge vs. Miller, supra, 3if the "atter is left to probabl#, then the statue of the presu"ption.3 !t is "anifest fro" the language of section 5* ?ii@ of Rule )/0 and of that of the foregoing decision that the evidence of the survivorship need not be direct it "a# be indirect, circu"stantial, or inferential. =here there are facts, (nown or (nowable, fro" which a rational conclusion can be "ade, the presu"ption does not step in, and the rule of preponderance of evidence controls. Are there particular circu"stances on record fro" which reasonable inference of survivorship between Angela $oa%uin and her son can be drawn !s rancisco 7ope92 testi"on# co"petent and sufficient for this purpose or a better appreciation of this issue, it is convenient and necessar# to detail the testi"on#, which was described b# the trial court as 3disinterested and trustworth#3 and b# the Court of Appeals as 3entitled to credence.3 7ope9 testifiedD. ou said #ou were also heat at that ti"e as #ou leave the 6er"an Club with $oa%uin Navarro, &r., $oa%uin Navarro, $r. and the latter2s wife; A. es, sir. D. 8id #ou fall F A. ! fell down. D. And #ou said #ou fell down close to $oa%uin Navarro, $r. A. es, sir.
D. =hen the 6er"an Club collapsed where were #ou F A. =e were out ) "eters awa# fro" the building but ! could see what was going on. 111
111
111
D. Could there have been an interval of fifteen "inutes between the two events, that is the shooting of $oa%uin Navarro, $r. and the collapse of the 6er"an Club F A. es, sir, ! could not sa# e1actl#, 4ccasions li(e that, #ou (now, #ou are confused. D. Could there ?have@ been an interval of an hour instead of fifteen "inutes F A. Possible, but not probable. D. Could it have been +: "inutes F A. es, sir, about +: "inutes. 111
111
111
D. ou also (now that Angela $oa%uin is alread# dead F A. es, sir. D. Can #ou tell the >onorable Court when did Angela $oa%uin die F A. =ell, a few "inutes after we have dashed out, the 6er"an Club, which was burning, collapsed over the", including Mrs. $oa%uin Navarro, &r. 111
111
111
D. ro" #our testi"on# it would appear that while #ou can give positive evidence to the fact that Pilar, Concepcion and Natividad Navarro, and $oa%uin Navarro, $r. died, #ou can not give the sa"e positive evidence to the fact that Angela $oa%uin also died F A. es, sir, in the sense that ! did not see her actuall# die, but when the building collapsed over her ! saw and ! a" positive and ! did not see her co"e out of that building so ! presu"ed she died there. 111
111
111
D. =h# did #ou have to dash out of the 6er"an Club, #ou, Mr. $oa%uin Navarro, &r. and Mr. $oa%uin Navarro $r. and the latter2s wife F A. Because the $apanese had set fire to the Club and the# were shooting people outside, so we thought of running awa# rather than be roasted. 111
111
111
D. ou "ean to sa# that before #ou 'u"ped out of the 6er"an Club all the Navarro girls, Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad, were alread# wounded F A. to "# (nowledge, #es. D. The# were wounded F A. es, sir.
D. =ere the# l#ing on the ground or not F A. 4n the ground near the entrance, because "ost of the people who were shot b# the $apanese were those who were tr#ing to escape, and as far as ! can re"e"ber the# were a"ong those (illed. 111
111
111
D. &o #ou noticed that the# were (illed or shot b# the $apanese a few "inutes before #ou left the place F A. That is what ! thin(, because those $apanese soldiers were shooting the people inside especiall# those tr#ing to escape. 111
111
111
D. And none of the" was not e1cept the girls, is that what #ou "ean A F . There were "an# people shot because the# were tr#ing to escape. 111
111
111
D. >ow co"e that these girls were shot when the# were inside the building, can #ou e1plain that F A. The# were tr#ing to escape probabl#. !t is our opinion that the preceding testi"on# contains facts %uite ade%uate to solve the proble" of survivorship between Angela $oa%uin and $oa%uin Navarro, $r. and (eep the statutor# presu"ption out of the case. !t is believed that in the light of the conditions painted b# 7ope9, a fair and reasonable inference can be arrived at, na"el#- that $oa%uin Navarro, $r. died before his "other. =hile the possibilit# that the "other died before the son can not be ruled out, it "ust be noted that this possibilit# is entirel# speculative and "ust #ield to the "ore rational deduction fro" proven facts that it was the other wa# around. $oa%uin Navarro, $r., it will be recalled, was (illed, while running, in front of, and ) "eters fro", the 6er"an Club. &till in the pri"e of life, 0:, he "ust have negotiated that distance in five seconds or less, and so died within that interval fro" the ti"e he dashed out of the building. Now, when $oa%uin Navarro, $r. with his father and wife started to flee fro" the clubhouse, the old lad# was alive and unhurt, so "uch so that the Navarro father and son tried hard to have her co"e along. &he could have perished within those five or fewer seconds, as stated, but the probabilities that she did see" ver# re"ote. True, people in the building were also (illed but these, according to 7ope9, were "ostl# refugees who had tried to slip awa# fro" it and were shot b# $apanese troops. !t was not ver# li(el# that Mrs. $oa%uin Navarro, &r. "ade an atte"pt to escape. &he even "ade frantic efforts to dissuade her husband and son fro" leaving the place and e1posing the"selves to gun fire. This deter"ination of Mrs. Angela $oa%uin to sta# where she was "a# well give an idea, at the sa"e ti"e, of a condition of relative safet# in the clubhouse at the "o"ent her husband, son, and daughter;in;law left her. !t strongl# tends to prove that, as the situation loo(ed to her, the perils of death fro" sta#ing were not so i""inent. And it lends credence to Mr. 7ope92 state"ent that the collapse of the clubhouse occurred about +: "inutes after $oa%uin Navarro the son was shot in the head and dropped dead, and that it was the collapse that (illed Mrs. Angela Navarro. The
Court of Appeals said the interval between $oa%uin Navarro2s death and the brea(ing down of the edifice was 3"inutes3. Even so, it was "uch longer than five seconds, long enough to warrant the inference that Mrs. Angela $oa%uin was sill alive when her son e1pired The Court of Appeals "entioned several causes, besides the collapse of the building, b# which Mrs. Navarro could have been (illed. All these are speculative , and the probabilities, in the light of the (nown facts, are against the". 8reading $apanese sharpshooters outside as evidenced b# her refusal to follow the onl# re"aining living "e"bers of h er fa"il#, she could not have (ept awa# for" protective walls. Besides, the building had been set on fire trap the refugees inside, and there was no necessit# for the $apanese to was their a""unition e1cept upon those who tried to leave the pre"ises. Nor was Angela $oa%uin li(el# to have been (illed b# falling bea"s because the building was "ade of concrete and its collapse, "ore li(el# than not, was sudden. As to fu"es, these do not cause instantaneous death certainl# not within the brief space of five seconds between her son2s departure and his death. !t will be said that all this is indulging in inferences that are not conclusive. &ection 5*?ii@ of Rule )/0 does not re%uire that the inference necessar# to e1clude the presu"ption therein provided be certain. !t is the 3particular circu"stances fro" which it ?survivorship@ can be inferred3 that are re%uired to be certain as tested b# the rules of evidence. !n spea(ing of inference the rule can not "ean be#ond doubt, for 3inference is never certaint#, but if "a# be plain enough to 'ustif# a finding of fact.3 ?!n re Bohen(o2s Estate, + N..&. /nd. +/<, citing Tortora vs. &tate of New or(, /5* N.. )** N.E. ++ >art vs. >udson River Bridge Co., : N..@. 5//.@ As the California courts have said, it is enough that 3the circu"stances b# which it is sought to prove the survivorship "ust be such as are co"petent and sufficient when tested b# the general rules of evidence in civil cases.3 ?!n re =allace2s Estate, supra.@ 3$uries "ust often reason,3 sa#s one author, 3according to probabilities, drawing an inference that the "ain fact in issue e1isted fro" collateral facts not directl# proving, but strongl# tending to p rove, its e1istence. The vital %uestion in such cases is the cogenc# of the proof afforded b# the secondar# facts. >ow likely, according to e1perience, is the e1istence of the pri"ar# fact if certain secondar# facts e1ist3 ?) Moore on acts, &ec. *5.@ The sa"e author tells us of a case where 3a 'ur# was 'ustified in drawing the inference that the person who was caught firing a shot at an ani"al trespassing on his land was the person who fired a shot about an hour before at the sa"e ani"al also trespassing.3 That conclusion was not airtight, but rational. !n fact, the circu"stances in the illustration leave greater roo" for another possibilit# than do the facts of the case at hand. !n conclusion the presu"ption that Angela $oa%uin de Navarro died before her son is based purel# on sur"ises, speculations, or con'ectures without an# sure foundation in the evidence. the opposite theor# F that the "other outlived her son F is deduced fro" established facts which, weighed b# co""on e1perience, engender the inference as a ver# strong probabilit#. 6auged b# the doctrine of preponderance of evidence b#, which civil cases are decided, this inference ought to prevail. !t can not be defeated as in an instance, cited b# 7ord Chief $ustice Gen#on, 3bordering on the ridiculous, where in an action on the ga"e laws it was suggested that the gun with which the defendant fired was not charged with shot, but that the bird "ight have died in conse%uence of the fright.3 ?) Moore on acts, 50, citing =il(inson vs. Pa#ne, + T. R. +5.@
!t is said that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals which the appellant i"pugns, and which has been discussed, involves findings of fact which can not be disturbed. The point is not, in our 'udg"ent, well considered. The particular circu"stances fro" which the parties and the Court of Appeals drew conclusions are, as above seen, undisputed, and this being the case, the correctness or incorrectness of those conclusions raises a %uestion of law, not of fact, which the &upre"e Court has 'urisdiction to loo( into. As was said in ) Moran Co""entaries on the Rules of Court, 0rd Ed. 5, <, 3Hndisputed evidence is one thing, and contradicted evidence is another. An incredible witness does not cease to be such because he is not i"peached or contradicted. But when the evidence is purel# docu"entar#, the authenticit# of which is not %uestioned and the onl# issue is the construction to be placed thereon, or where a case is sub"itted upon an agree"ent of facts, or where all the facts are stated in the 'udg"ent and the issue is the correctness of the conclusions drawn therefro", the %uestion is one of law which "a# be reviewed b# the &upre"e Court.3 The %uestion of whether upon given facts the operation of the statutor# presu"ption is to be invo(ed is a %uestion of law. The prohibition against inter"eddling with decisions on %uestions of evidence refers to decisions supported b# substantial evidence. B# substantial evidence is "eant real evidence or at least evidence about which reasonable "en "a# disagree. indings grounded entirel# on speculations, sur"ises, or con'ectures co"e within the e1ception to the general rule. =e are constrained to reverse the decision under review, and hold that the distribution of the decedents2 estates should be "ade in accordance with the decision of the trial court. This result precludes the necessit# of passing upon the %uestion of 3reserva troncal3 which was put forward on the h#pothetical theor# that Mrs. $oa%uin Navarro2s death preceded that of her son. =ithout costs. Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, eyes, !ugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, !!., concur.
