Today is Thursday, January 09, 2020

Custom Search

nc es Judic ia l Issua nc es  Ot her Issua nc es Jurisprudenc e  Int erna t iona l Lega l  AUSL Exc lusive
R

T HIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 127745            April 22, 2003

FELICITO G. SANSON, CELEDONIA SANSON-SAQUIN, ANGELES A. MONTINOLA, EDUARDO A. MONTINOLA, JR.,

pet it ioners-appellant s,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DIVISION and MELECIA T. SY, as Administratrix of the Intestate
Estate of the Late Juan Bon Fing Sy, respondent s-appellees.

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Before t his Court is a pet it ion for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of t he Rules of Court assailing t he Court of
Appeals Decision of May 31, 1996 and Resolut ion of December 9, 1996.

On February 7, 1990, herein pet it ioner-appellant Felicito G. Sanson (Sanson), in his capacit y as creditor, filed
before t he Regional Trial Court (RT C) of Iloilo Cit y a pet it ion, docket ed as Special Proceedings No. 4497, for t he
set t lement of t he est at e of Juan Bon Fing Sy (t he deceased) who died on January 10, 1990. Sanson claimed
t hat t he deceased was indebt ed to him in t he amount of P603,000.00 and to his sist er Celedonia Sanson-Saquin
(Celedonia) in t he amount of P360,000.00.1

Pet it ioners-appellant s Eduardo Mont inola, Jr. and his mot her Angeles Mont inola (Angeles) lat er filed separat e
claims against t he est at e, alleging t hat t he deceased owed t hem P50,000.00 and P150,000.00, respect ively.2

By Order of February 12, 1991, Branch 28 of t he Iloilo RT C to which t he pet it ion was raffled, appoint ed Melecia T.
Sy, surviving spouse of t he deceased, as administ rat rix of his est at e, following which she was issued let t ers of
administ rat ion.3

During t he hearing of t he claims against t he est at e, Sanson, Celedonia, and Jade Mont inola, wife of claimant
Eduardo Mont inola, Jr., t est ified on t he t ransact ions t hat gave rise t hereto, over t he object ion of t he
administ rat rix who invoked Sect ion 23, Rule 130 of t he Revised Rules of Court ot herwise known as t he Dead
Man’s St at ut e which reads:

SEC. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party.—Part ies or assignors of part ies to a
case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecut ed, against an executor or administ rator or ot her
represent at ive of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand
against t he est at e of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot t est ify as
to any mat t er of fact occurring before t he deat h of such deceased person or before such person
became of unsound mind. (Emphasis supplied)

Sanson, in support of t he claim of his sist er Celedonia, t est ified t hat she had a t ransact ion wit h t he deceased
which is evidenced by six checks 4 issued by him before his deat h; before t he deceased died, Celedonia t ried to
enforce set t lement of t he checks from his (t he deceased’s) son Jerry who told her t hat his fat her would set t le
t hem once he got well but he never did; and aft er t he deat h of t he deceased, Celedonia present ed t he checks to
t he bank for payment but were dishonored5 due to t he closure of his account .6

Celedonia, in support of t he claim of her brot her Sanson, t est ified t hat she knew t hat t he deceased issued five
checks 7 to Sanson in set t lement of a debt ; and aft er t he deat h of t he deceased, Sanson present ed t he checks
to t he bank for payment but were ret urned due to t he closure of his account .8

Jade, in support of t he claims of her husband Eduardo Mont inola, Jr. and mot her-in-law Angeles, t est ified t hat
on separat e occasions, t he deceased borrowed P50,000 and P150,000 from her husband and mot her-in-law,
respect ively, as shown by t hree checks issued by t he deceased,9 t wo to Angeles and t he ot her10 to Eduardo
Mont inola, Jr.; before t he deceased died or somet ime in August 1989, t hey advised him t hat t hey would be
deposit ing t he checks, but he told t hem not to as he would pay t hem cash, but he never did; and aft er t he
deceased died on January 10, 1990, t hey deposit ed t he checks but were dishonored as t he account against
which t hey were drawn was closed,11 hence, t heir legal counsel sent a demand let t er12 dat ed February 6, 1990
addressed to t he deceased’s heirs Melicia, James, Mini and Jerry Sy, and Symmels I & II but t he checks have
remained unset t led.13

T he administ rat rix, denying having any knowledge or informat ion sufficient to form a belief as to t he t rut h of
t he claims, nevert heless alleged t hat if t hey ever exist ed, t hey had been paid and ext inguished, are usurious and
illegal and are, in any event , barred by prescript ion.14 And she object ed to t he admission of t he checks and
check ret urn slips-exhibit s offered in evidence by t he claimant s upon t he ground t hat t he wit nesses who
t est ified t hereon are disqualified under t he Dead Man’s St at ut e.

Specifically wit h respect to t he checks-exhibit s ident ified by Jade, t he administ rat rix assert ed t hat t hey are
inadmissible because Jade is t he daught er-in-law of claimant Angeles and wife of claimant Eduardo Mont inola,
Jr., hence, she is covered by t he above-said rule on disqualificat ion.

At all event s, t he administ rat rix denied t hat t he checks-exhibit s were issued by t he deceased and t hat t he
ret urn slips were issued by t he depository/clearing bank.15

Aft er t he claimant s rest ed t heir case, t he administ rat rix filed four separat e manifest at ions informing t he t rial
court t hat she was dispensing with the presentation of evidence against their claims.16

Finding t hat t he Dead Man’s St at ut e does not apply to t he wit nesses who t est ified in support of t he subject
claims against t he est at e, t he t rial court issued an Order of December 8, 1993,17 t he disposit ive port ion of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, Judicial Administ rat rix Melecia T. Sy, is hereby ordered, to pay, in due course of
administ rat ion, creditors-claimant s Felicito G. Sanson, in t he amount of P603,500.00; Celedonia S. Saquin,
in t he amount of P315,000.00;18 Angeles A. Mont inola, in t he amount of P150,000.00 and Eduardo
Mont inola, Jr., in t he amount of P50,000.00, from t he asset s and/or propert ies of t he above-ent it led
int est at e est at e.

On appeal by t he administ rat rix upon t he following assignment of errors:

I.

T HE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING T HE CLAIM[S] FOR FAILURE T O PAY T HE FILING FEES
T HEREON

II.

T HE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING T HE CLAIM[S] BECAUSE [T HEY ARE] ALREADY BARRED BY
T HE LAW OF LIMITAT IONS OR STAT UT E OF NON-CLAIMS

III.

T HE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING T HAT CLAIMANT [S’] EVIDENCE OF T HE CLAIM IS
INCOMPET ENT UNDER T HE DEAD MAN’S STAT UT E, AND INADMISSIBLE

IV.

T HE ALLEGED CHECKS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS PRIVAT E DOCUMENT S,19

t he Court of Appeals set aside t he December 8, 1993 Order of t he t rial court , by Decision of May 31, 1996,
disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, t he order appealed from is hereby set aside and anot her order is ent ered dismissing the
claims of:

1. Felicito G. Sanson, in t he amount of P603,500.00;

 2. Celdonia S. Saquin, in t he amount of P315,000.00;20

3. Angeles A. Mont inola, in t he amount of P150,000.00; and

4. Eduardo Mont inola, Jr., in t he amount of P50,000.00 against t he est at e of t he deceased JUAN BON FING
SY.

No pronouncement as to cost s.

SO ORDERED. (It alics supplied)

T he claimant s’ Mot ion for Reconsiderat ion21 of t he Court of Appeals decision having been denied by Resolut ion
of December 9, 1996,22 t hey filed t he present pet it ion anchored on t he following assigned errors:

FIRST ASSIGNED ERROR

RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS, 4T H DIVISION, ERRED IN FINDING T HAT T HE T EST IMONY OF JADE
MONT INOLA IS INSUFFICIENT T O PROVE T HE CLAIMS OF CLAIMANT S ANGELES A. MONT INOLA AND
EDUARDO A. MONT INOLA, JR..

SECOND ASSIGNED ERROR

RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS, 4T H DIVISION, ERRED IN FINDING T HAT CLAIMANT FELICIT O G. SANSON
IS DISQUALIFIED T O T EST IFY [ON] T HE CLAIM OF CELEDONIA SANSON-SA[Q]UIN AND VI[C]E VERSA.
(Underscoring in t he original)23

Wit h respect to t he first assigned error, pet it ioners argue t hat since t he administ rat rix did not deny t he
t est imony of Jade nor present any evidence to cont rovert it , and neit her did she deny t he execut ion and
genuineness of t he checks issued by t he deceased (as well as t he check ret urn slips issued by t he clearing
bank), it was error for t he Court of Appeals to find t he evidence of t he Mont inolas insufficient to prove t heir
claims.

T he administ rat rix count ers t hat t he due execut ion and aut hent icit y of t he checks-exhibit s of t he Mont inolas
were not duly proven since Jade did not cat egorically st at e t hat she saw t he filling up and signing of t he checks
by t he deceased, hence, her t est imony is self-serving; besides, as Jade had ident ical and unit ary int erest wit h
her husband and mot her-in-law, her t est imony was a circumvent ion of t he Dead Man’s St at ut e.24

T he administ rat rix’s count er-argument does not lie. Relat ionship to a part y has never been recognized as an
adverse factor in det ermining eit her t he credibilit y of t he wit ness or—subject only to well recognized except ions
none of which is here present —t he admissibilit y of t he t est imony. At most , closeness of relat ionship to a part y,
or bias, may indicat e t he need for a lit t le more caut ion in t he assessment of a wit ness’ t est imony but is not
necessarily a negat ive element which should be t aken as diminishing t he credit ot herwise accorded to it .25

Jade’s t est imony on t he genuineness of t he deceased’s signat ure on t he checks-exhibit s of t he Mont inolas is
clear:

xxx

Q:         Showing to you t his check dat ed July 16, 1989, Far East Bank and Trust Company Check No. 84262,
in t he amount of P100,000.00, is t his t he check you are referring to?

A:         Yes, sir.

Q:         T here appears a signat ure in t he face of t he check. Whose signat ure is t his?

A:         T hat is t he signat ure of Mr. Sy.

Q:         Why do you know that this is the signature of Mr. Sy?

A:         Because he signed t his check I was . . . I was present when he signed this check.

xxx

Q:         Showing to you t his check dat ed Sept ember 8, 1989, is t his t he check you are referring to?

A:         Yes, sir.
 Q:         Why do you know that this is his signature?

A:         I was there when he signed the same.

xxx

Q:         Showing to you t his Far East Bank and Trust Company Check No. 84262 dat ed July 6, 1989, in t he
amount of P50,000.00, in t he name of Eduardo Mont inola, are you referring to t his check?

A:         Yes, sir.

Q:         Whose signat ure is t his appearing on t he face of t his check?

A:         Mr. Sy’s signat ure.

Q:         Why do you know that it is his signature?

A:         I was there when he signed the same.

x x x26 (Emphasis supplied)

T he genuineness of t he deceased’s signat ure having been shown, he is prima facie presumed to have become a
part y to t he check for value, following Sect ion 24 of t he Negot iable Inst rument s Law which reads:

Sect ion 24. Presumption of Consideration. – Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have
been issued for a valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have
become a party thereto for value. (Underscoring and it alics in t he original; emphasis supplied),

Since, wit h respect to t he checks issued to t he Mont inolas, t he prima facie presumpt ion was not rebut t ed or
cont radict ed by t he administ rat rix who expressly manifest ed t hat she was dispensing wit h t he present at ion of
evidence against t heir claims, it has become conclusive.

As for t he administ rat rix’s invocat ion of t he Dead Man’s St at ut e, t he same does not likewise lie. T he rule renders
incompet ent : 1) parties to a case; 2) their assignors; or 3) persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.

xxx

T he rule is exclusive and cannot be const rued to ext end it s scope by implicat ion so as to disqualify
persons not ment ioned t herein. Mere witnesses who are not included in the above enumeration are not
prohibited from testifying as to a conversation or transaction between the deceased and a third person, if he took
no active part therein.

x x x27 (It alics supplied)

Jade is not a part y to t he case. Neit her is she an assignor nor a person in whose behalf t he case is being
prosecut ed. She t est ified as a wit ness to t he t ransact ion. In t ransact ions similar to t hose involved in t he case
at bar, t he wit nesses are commonly family members or relat ives of t he part ies. Should t heir t est imonies be
excluded due to t heir apparent int erest as a result of t heir relat ionship to t he part ies, t here would be a deart h of
evidence to prove t he t ransact ions. In any event , as will be discussed lat er, independent ly of t he t est imony of
Jade, t he claims of t he Mont inolas would st ill prosper on t he basis of t heir document ary evidence—t he checks.

As to t he second assigned error, pet it ioners argue t hat t he t est imonies of Sanson and Celedonia as wit nesses
to each ot her’s claim against t he deceased are not covered by t he Dead Man’s St at ut e;28 besides, t he
administ rat rix waived t he applicat ion of t he law when she cross-examined t hem.

T he administ rat rix, on t he ot her hand, cit es t he ruling of t he Court of Appeals in it s decision on review, t he
pert inent port ion of which reads:

T he more logical int erpret at ion is to prohibit parties to a case, with like interest, from t est ifying in each
ot her’s favor as to act s occurring prior to t he deat h of t he deceased.

Since t he law disqualifies part ies to a case or assignors to a case wit hout dist inguishing bet ween
t est imony in his own behalf and t hat in behalf of ot hers, he should be disqualified from t est ifying for his
co-part ies. T he law speaks of "parties or assignors of parties to a case." Apparent ly, t he t est imonies of
Sanson and Saquin on each ot her’s behalf, as co-part ies to t he same case, falls under t he prohibit ion.
(Cit at ion omit t ed; underscoring in t he original and emphasis supplied)
But Sanson’s and Celedonia’s claims against t he same est at e arose from separat e t ransact ions. Sanson is a
t hird part y wit h respect to Celedonia’s claim. And Celedonia is a t hird part y wit h respect to Sanson’s claim. One
is not t hus disqualified to t est ify on t he ot her’s t ransact ion.

In any event , what t he Dead Man’s St at ut e proscribes is t he admission of testimonial evidence upon a claim
which arose before t he deat h of t he deceased. T he incompet ency is confined to t he giving of testimony.29 Since
t he separat e claims of Sanson and Celedonia are support ed by checks-documentary evidence, t heir claims can
be prosecut ed on t he bases of said checks.

T his brings t his Court to t he mat t er of t he aut hent icit y of t he signat ure of t he deceased appearing on t he
checks issued to Sanson and Celedonia. By Celedonia’s account , she "knows" t he signat ure of t he deceased.

xxx

Q:         Showing to you t hese checks already marked as Exhibit "A" to "E", please go over t hese checks if
you know t he signat ures of t he lat e Juan Bon Fing Sy? on t hese checks?

A:         Yes, sir.

Q:         Insofar as t he amount t hat he borrowed from you, he also issued checks?

A:         Yes, sir.

Q:         And t herefore, you know his signat ure?

A:         Yes, sir.

x x x30

Sanson t est ified too t hat he "knows" t he signat ure of t he deceased:

xxx

Q:         I show you now checks which were already marked as Exhibit "A" to "G-1" – Saquin, please go over
t his if t hese are t he checks t hat you said was issued by t he lat e Juan Bon Fing Sy in favor of your sist er?

A:         Yes, t hese are t he same che[c]ks.

Q:         Do you know t he signat ure of t he lat e Juan Bon Fing Sy?

A:         Yes, sir.

Q:         And t hese signat ures are t he same signat ures t hat you know?

A:         Yes, sir.

x x x31

While t he foregoing t est imonies of t he Sanson siblings have not fait hfully discharged t he quant um of proof
under Sect ion 22, Rule 132 of t he Revised Rules on Evidence which reads:

Sect ion 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. – T he handwrit ing of a person may be proved by any
wit ness who believes it to be t he handwrit ing of such person because he has seen t he person writ e, or
has seen writ ing purport ing to be his upon which t he wit ness has act ed or been charged and has t hus
acquired knowledge of t he handwrit ing of such person. x x x,

not only did t he administ rat rix fail to cont rovert t he same; from a comparison32 wit h t he naked eye of t he
deceased’s signat ure appearing on each of t he checks-exhibit s of t he Mont inolas wit h t hat of t he checks-
exhibit s of t he Sanson siblings all of which checks were drawn from the same account, t hey appear to have been
affixed by one and t he same hand.

In fine, as t he claimant s-herein pet it ioners have, by t heir evidence, subst ant iat ed t heir claims against t he
est at e of t he deceased, t he burden of evidence had shift ed to t he administ rat rix who, however, expressly opt ed
not to discharge t he same when she manifest ed t hat she was dispensing wit h t he present at ion of evidence
against t he claims.

WHEREFORE, t he impugned May 31, 1996 Decision of t he Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE and anot her
rendered ordering t he int est at e est at e of t he lat e Juan Bon Fing Sy, t hrough Administ rat rix Melecia T. Sy, to pay:
 1) Felicito G. Sanson, t he amount of P603,500.00;

2) Celedonia S. Saquin, t he amount of P315.000.00;33

3) Angeles Mont inola, t he amount of P150,000.00; and

4) Eduardo Mont inola, Jr., t he amount of P50,000.00.

represent ing unset t led checks issued by t he deceased.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Rollo at 7-8.

2 Id. at 8, 33.

3 Id. at 34.

4 Exhibit s "A"-"G" – Saquin.

5 Transcript of St enographic Not es (T SN), Sept ember 16, 1992 at 4-5.

6 Exhibit s "A-1"-"G-1".

7 Exhibit s "A"-"E" – Sanson.

8 T SN, October 1, 1992 at 2-5.

9 Exhibit s "A" and "B" – Angeles Mont inola.

10 Exhibit "A" – Eduardo Mont inola.

11 Exhibit s "A-1" and "B-1" – Angeles Mont inola; Exhibit "C" – Eduardo Mont inola.

12 Exhibit "D" – Angeles Mont inola; Exhibit "B" – Eduardo Mont inola.

13 T SN, Sept ember 18, 1992 at 4-9.

14 Joint Record on Appeal Against t he Order Grant ing t he Claims of Angeles A. Mont inola and Eduardo A.
Mont inola, Jr. at 15 and 21; Joint Record on Appeal Against t he Order Grant ing t he Claims of Felicito
Sanson and Celedonia Sanson-Saquin at 15 and 23.

15 Joint Record on Appeal Against t he Order Grant ing t he Claims of Angeles A. Mont inola and Eduardo A.
Mont inola, Jr. at 16-17; Joint Record on Appeal Against t he Order Grant ing t he Claims of Felicito Sanson
and Celedonia Sanson-Saquin at 18 and 24.
16 Rollo at 43.

17 Id. at 32-47.

18 It is not ed t hat t he tot al amount of checks-exhibit s of Celedonia Sanson-Saquin is P360,000.00. She

did not , however, move to reconsider t he amount of P315,000.00 ordered to be paid to her.
19 Court of Appeals (CA) Rollo at 40-41, 100-101.

20 Vide Foot not es 18.

21 Rollo at 72-96.
 22 Id. at 99.

23 Id. at 12.

24 Id. at 127-129.

25 People v. Bandoquillo, 167 SCRA 549 (1988).

26 T SN, Sept ember 18, 1992 at 2-7.

27 Jovito R. Salonga, PHILIPPINE LAW ON EVIDENCE, 3rd Edit ion, 1964 at 194.

28 Rollo at 17.

29 Vide Mart in’s Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. 5, p. 158 (1996).

30 T SN, October 1, 1992 at 3.

31 T SN, Sept ember 16, 1992 at 4.

32 Sec. 22 of Rule 132 provides:

xxx

Evidence respect ing t he handwrit ing may also be given by a comparison, made by t he wit ness or
t he court , wit h writ ings admit t ed or t reat ed as genuine by t he part y against whom t he evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to t he sat isfact ion of t he judge.

xxx

33 As prayed in t he Pet it ion before t his Court .

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation