Tongco vs.

Vianzon
September 20, 1927| Malcolm, J. | Dead Mans Statute
PETITIONER: Inestate estate of Marcelino Tongco, represented by JOSEFA TONGCO, administratrix
RESPONDENT: Anastacia Vianzon

SUMMARY: Before Marcelino died, he presented claims in a cadastral case over certain parcels of land.
Shortly after he died, these parcels of land were named in his conjugal partnership with Anastacia.
Josefa, Marcelinos niece and appointed administratrix, filed an action for recovery of these properties.
The trial court ruled in favor of Anastacia, but Josefa questioned the fact that the trial court admitted
Anastacias testimony. SC ruled that TC did not err in admitting Anastacias testimony because a
cadastral case does not involve a petitioner and a defendant, and the case was commenced by the
estate and not against it, as provided in the provision.

DOCTRINE: Dead mans statute is subject to waiver, and is not applicable in a cadastral case where
there is neither a defendant nor a petitioner.

FACTS: presumption is that all the property of the

1. Marcelino Tongco and Anastacia Vianzon
contrated marriage on July 5, 1984. Marcelino
died on July 8, 1925.
2. Josefa Tongco, Marcelinos niece, was named
administratrix of the estate. Shortly before
Marcelinos death, he presented claims in a
cadastral case in which he asked for titles to
certain properties in the name of the conjugal
partnership between him and his wife.
3. The corresponding decrees for these lots were
issued in the name of the conjugal partnership
not long after his death.
4. Anastacia instituted a motion for the revision of
certain decrees (issued not long after Marcelinos
death). The Judge of First Instance Rovira held
that the original certificates should be set aside,
and that new ones be issued in the name of
Anastacia Vianzon.
5. Three months after, Josefa began an action
against Anastacia for the recovery of specified
property and for damages. The trial court decided
in favor of Anastacia.
6. Josefa assigns two major errors: (1) that the
trial court erred the appreciation of facts and (2)
that the trial court erred in ruling that Anastacia,
the widow, was competent to testify.
ISSUE: W/N the property in dispute should be
assigned to the estate of Marcelino Tongco or
should be set aside as belonging exclusively to
the widow
spouses is partnership property in the absence of
proof that it belongs exclusively to the husband
or to the wife.
2. Tongcos counsel argued that Anastacias
testimony should not be received on the ground
that Section 383 of the code of Civil Procedure
provides that Parties or assignors of parties
to an action or proceeding, or persons in
whose behalf an action or proceeding is
prosecuted, against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, upon a claim or demand
against the estate of such deceased person,
cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such
deceased person.
3. The purpose of the statute is to guard against
he temptation to give false testimony in regard to
the transaction in question on the part of the
surviving party.
4. Closely interpreting the provision, the Court
found that there is no error that can be imputed
to the trial court in admitting the testimony of
Anastacia, the widow. The claim was presented in
cadastral proceedings, where in one sense, there
is no plaintiff and there is no defendant. The
Court also took note that there has already been
a waiver when the adverse party undertook to
cross-examine the interested person with respect
to the prohibited matters.

HELD: Trial courts decision upheld.

RATIO:

1. By reason of Article 1407 of the civil Code, the