TITLE: Tongco vs.

Vianzon
CITATION: 50 Phil. 698, No. 27498 September 20, 1927
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute

FACTS:
H and W are married. Before the death of H, he had presented claims in a cadastral case to ask for
titles to certain properties in the name of the conjugal partnership consisting of himself and his wife.
The decrees were issued after H’s death but were subsequently annulled and new ones were issued as
exclusive properties of W. The administratrix of the estate began action against W for the recovery of
specified property and for damages. During trial, W testified that that the property in question
belonged exclusively to her. Is W’s testimony admissible?

ANSWER:
Yes.

The Rules provide 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.

In the case at bar, the action is filed by the administratrix to enforce a demand "by" the estate. The
case was not brought "against" the administratrix of the estate, nor were they brought upon claims
"against" the estate.

Thus, W’s testimony is admissible.

TITLE: Lichauoo vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.
CITATION: 84 Phil. 330, No. L-2016 August 23, 1949
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute

FACTS:
X held 1,000 shares of stock of XY Co., of which 545 shares had not been fully paid for, but for which
he had executed promissory notes. When X died, XY Co. filed a claim against his estate. In his answer,
the administrator denied the indebtedness of the X to the XY Co. The evidence for XY Co. consisted of
the testimony of A (the chief accountant) and B (assistant accountant). Are the testimonies of A and B
admissible?

ANSWER:
Yes.

Rule 123, section 26 (c) of the Rules of Court (a.k.a. “Dead man’s statute”) provides disqualifies only
parties or assignors of parties from testifying, the officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not
disqualified from testifying, for or against the corporation which is a party to an action upon a claim
or demand against the estate of a deceased person, as to any matter of fact occurring before the death
of such deceased person.

In the case at bar, A and B are merely officers of XY Co. and not parties nor assignor of parties to the
case.

Thus, their testimonies are admissible.

TITLE: Go Chi Gun, et al. vs. Co Cho, et al.
CITATION: 96 Phil. 622, No. L-5208 February 28, 1955
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute

FACTS:
Y instituted judicial proceedings for the distribution of the estate of his father X. Upon the termination
of the proceedings, Y instituted guardianship proceedings for his minor brothers and sisters, and he
was appointed guardian for their persons and properties. Later on, Y died. A and B filed a complaint
alleging that they were purposely kept in complete and absolute ignorance of the intestate proceedings
of their deceased father X. A and B testified as to a supposed statement, made to them by the Y during
his lifetime that their common father X had not left any properties. Are the testimonies of A and B
admissible?

ANSWER:
Yes.

The Rules provide 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.

In this case, the properties subject of the action had already been distributed among the other heirs
when the action was brought. The properties no longer belong to the deceased X, and therefore the
heirs are sued in their personal capacity and not as representatives of the deceased.

Thus, their testimonies are admissible.