[G.R. No. 30472. January 20, 1930. ] MARIANO MARALIT AND EMETERIO LOTA, Pa!n"!##$%A&&'an"$, (. RE)NALDO LARDI*A+AL, a$ u-!!a a-/!n!$"ra"or o# "' '$"a"' o# G'r/ana o!$, D'#'n-an"%A&&'an".
Facts: On February 15, 1920, the deceased Germana Solis hired the plaintiffs to repair her house in Lipa, atan!as, for the sum of "1#,000$ "laintiffs alle!ed that they ha%e performed the &or', but ha%e only recei%ed "11,550 from Solis$ (hey also alle!e that they performed additional &or' not included in the contract$ (hey pray that the defendant, &h o is the )udicial administrator of the intestate estate of Solis, be ordered to pay them the remainder of the price stipulated in the contract, the %alue of the additional &or' done, and dama!es, &hich they alle!e they sustained by reason of the contract$ *n turn, the defendant filed a cross+complaint for the foreclosure of the mort!a!e !i%en by aralit, to secure the fulfillment of his obli!ations under the contract, and a counterclaim for the %alue of the materials and labor en!a!ed by defendant on account of the plaintiff-s ha%in! abandoned the &or', and for dama!es caused by the delay in the completion thereof$ (he lo&er court ordered the defendant d efendant to pay the plaintiffs the remainin! balance plus the le!al interest$ (he court li'e&ise absol%ed the defendant from all causes of action and the plaintiffs from the counterclaim and the cross+claim$ oth parties appealed the decision$ *ssue: .hether the lo&er court erred in refusin! to admit the testimony of plaintiff ariano aralit to pro%e that the deceased Germana Solis, in the course of the &or', ordered some additional repairs to be made not included in the contract /eld: (he ourt ruled that that the refusal of the lo&er court to admit the testimony of aralit is &ith merit$ (his decision is based on section , para!raph 3 of the ode of i%il "rocedure, &hich pro%ides that parties or assi!nors of parties to an action or proceed in!, or persons in &hose behalf an action or proceedin! is prosecuted a!ainst an e4ecutor or administrator or other representati%e of a deceased person, upon a claim or demand a!ainst the estate of such deceased person, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurrin! before the death of such deceased person$ *t &as alle!ed that this pro%ision is inapplicable because Solis died only after the complaint had been filed a!ainst her$ ut the la& does not state that it only refers to cases &here the deceased died before the action &as instituted$ oreo%er, the purpose of the prohibition, &hich is to discoura!e per)ury may be applied &here the deceased died either before or after the filin! of the suit a!ainst her, if, &hen the testimony is !i%en, she is already dead and cannot dispro%e it$