FELICITO G. SANSON, CELEDONIA SANSON-SAQUIN, ANGELES A. MONTINOLA, EDUARDO A. MONTINOLA, JR (creditors) vs.

CA and
Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the Late Juan Bon Fing Sy
CARPIO MORALES,  J.: [G.R. No. 127745. April 22, 2003]
By Monica

FACTS:
1. Sanson, in his capacity as creditor filed before the RTC of Iloilo City a petition for the settlement of the estate of Juan Bon
Fing Sy (deceased). Sanson claimed that deceased owed him P603K and owed his sister Celedonia P360K.
2. Montinolas (Eduardo and Angeles) later filed separate claims against the estate for P50K and P150K.
3. RTC by order appointed Melecia Sy (surviving spouse of deceased) as administratrix of his estate following which she was
issued letters of administration.
4. Evidence presented during the hearing of the claims:
a. Sanson (creditor), in support of the claim of his sister Celedonia, testified that she had a transaction with the
deceased which is evidenced by six checks issued by him before his death; before the deceased died, Celedonia
tried to enforce settlement of the checks from his (the deceased’s) son Jerry who told her that his father would
settle them once he got well but he never did; and after the death of the deceased, Celedonia presented the
checks to the bank for payment but were dishonored due to the closure of his account.
b. Celedonia (creditor), in support of the claim of her brother Sanson, testified that she knew that the deceased
issued five checks to Sanson in settlement of a debt; and after the death of the deceased, Sanson presented the
checks to the bank for payment but were returned due to the closure of his account.
c. Jade , in support of the claims of her husband Eduardo Montinola, Jr. and mother-in-law Angeles, testified that on
separate occasions, the deceased borrowed P50,000 and P150,000 from her husband and mother-in-law,
respectively, as shown by three checks issued by the deceased, two to Angeles and the other to Eduardo
Montinola, Jr.; before the deceased died or sometime in August 1989, they advised him that they would be
depositing the checks, but he told them not to as he would pay them cash, but he never did; and after the
deceased died they deposited the checks but were dishonored as the account against which they were drawn was
closed, hence, their legal counsel sent a demand letter addressed to the deceased’s heirs but the checks have
remained unsettled.
5. The administratrix, denying having any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the claims,
nevertheless alleged that if they ever existed, they had been paid and extinguished, are usurious and illegal and are, in any
event, barred by prescription. And she objected to the admission of the checks and check return slips-exhibits offered in
evidence by the claimants upon the ground that the witnesses who testified thereon are disqualified under the Dead
Man’s Statute. [R130.23]
a. Checks-exhibits identified by Jade: inadmissible because of Jade’s relation to creditors Montinolas.
6. After the claimants rested their case, the administratrix filed four separate manifestations informing the trial court that  she
was dispensing with the presentation of evidence against their claims.
7. RTC ordered the administratrix to pay the creditors and found that the Dead Man’s Statute does not apply.
8. CA set aside the RTC order and dismissed the claims of the creditors. Creditor’s MR was denied. R45 to SC.
ISSUES:
1. WON the testimony of Jade is sufficient to prove the claims of the Montinolas? – Yes
2. WON the Sanson is disqualified to testify on the claim of Celedonia and vice versa? - No
RATIO:
1. On Jade’s testimony
a. The administratrix’s counter-argument that Jade had identical and unitary interest with her husband and mother-
in-law therefore the Dead Man’s Statute applies does not lie. Relationship to a party has never been recognized as
an adverse factor in determining either the credibility of the witness or subject only to well recognized exceptions
none of which is here present the admissibility of the testimony. At most, closeness of relationship to a party, or
bias, may indicate the need for a little more caution in the assessment of a witness testimony but is not necessarily
a negative element which should be taken as diminishing the credit otherwise accorded to it.
b. Jades testimony on the genuineness of the deceased’s signature on the checks-exhibits of the Montinolas is clear:
That she identified the checks and Mr. Sy (decease-debtor)’s signature since she witnessed the signing of the
checks.
i. The genuineness of the deceased’s signature having been shown, he is prima facie presumed to have
become a party to the check for value, following Section 24 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which
reads: Section 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. Since the prima facie presumption was not rebutted
(administratrix dispensed with the presentation of evidence against claims) it became conclusive.
c. ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE: The rule renders incompetent: 1) parties to a case; 2) their
assignors; or 3) persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.
i. The rule is exclusive and cannot be construed to extend its scope by implication so as to disqualify persons
not mentioned therein. 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.
ii. Jade is not a party to the case. Neither is she an assignor nor a person in whose behalf the case is being
prosecuted. She testified as a witness to the transaction. In transactions similar to those involved in the
case at bar, the witnesses are commonly family members or relatives of the parties. Should their
testimonies be excluded due to their apparent interest as a result of their relationship to the parties,
there would be a dearth of evidence to prove the transactions. In any event, independently of the
testimony of Jade, the claims of the Montinolas would still prosper on the basis of their documentary
evidence - the checks.
2. On Sanson’s and Celedonia’s testimonies
a. Sanson’s and Celedonia’s claims against the same estate arose from separate transactions. Sanson is a third party
with respect to Celedonias claim. And Celedonia is a third party with respect to Sansons claim. One is not thus
disqualified to testify on the others transaction.
i. the administratix argued that the law speaks of “parties or assignors of parties to a case.” Apparently, the
testimonies of Sanson and Saquin on each other’s behalf, as co-parties to the same case, falls under the
prohibition. The administratix claims that since the law disqualifies parties to a case or assignors to a case
without distinguishing between testimony in his own behalf and that in behalf of others, he should be
disqualified from testifying for his co-parties.
b. ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE: what it proscribes is the admission of testimonial evidence
upon a claim which arose before the death of the deceased. The incompetency is confined to the giving of
testimony. Since the separate claims of Sanson and Celedonia are supported by checks-documentary evidence,
their claims can be prosecuted on the bases of said checks.
c. As to the authenticity of the signature of the deceased on the checks issued to Sanson and Celedonia: Celedonia
testified that she knows the signature of the deceased but did not explain how.
i. While her testimony have not faithfully discharged the quantum of proof required under R132.22 1 st
sentence, the administratrix failed to controvert the same
ii. and also naked eye comparison of signature in Montinolas’ checks and Sanson siblings’ checks it appears
that they have been affixed by one and the same hand [R132.22 2 nd sentence]
WHEREFORE, the impugned May 31, 1996 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE and another rendered ordering
the intestate estate of the late Juan Bon Fing Sy, through Administratrix, to pay the CREDITORS representing unsettled checks issued
by the deceased.