Title: Ramon Joaquin v Antonio Navarro Digester: yanna

GR No. L-5426-28 Date: May 29,1953 Ponente: Tuason

Recit Summary:

Doctrine:

Facts:
● On Feb 6, 1945, while the battle for the liberation of Manila was raging, the spouses Joaquin Navarro, SR. and Angela Joaquin, together
with their three daughters, Pilar,Conception, and Natividad, and their son Joaquin Navarro,Jr., and the latter’s wife, Adela Conde, sought
refuge in the ground floor of the building known as the German Club, at the corner of San Marcelino and San Luis Streets of Manila.
● During their stay, the building was packed with refugees, shells were exploding around, and the club was set on fire.
● The Japanese started shooting at the people inside, especially thos who were trying to escape. Thus, the three daughters were hit and fell
on the ground.
● Joaquin N.SR, and his son decided to leave the building and seek a safe haven but the mother refused to join them.
● Joaquin N. Sr, Joaquin N. Jr and his wife, and a former neighbor, Francisco Lopez, dashed out of the burning edifice.
● As they came out, Joaquin N. Jr was shot in the head by Japanse soldier and immediately fell down.
● Minutes later, the German club was already on fire and collapsed, trapping many people inside, presumably including Angela Joaquin.
● Joaquin Navarro, Sr., Adela Conde and Francisco Lopez managed to reach an air raid shelter nearby, and stayed there about three days,
until Feb 10,1945. After they were forced to leave the shelter, they fled toward St. Theresa Academy, but unfortunately met Japanses
patrols, who fired at the refugees, killing Joaquin Navaroo, Sr. and Adela Conde.
● Francisco Lopez miraculously survived the holocaust, and all these findings came from his testimony. But the CA stated that the testimony
of Francisco Lopez is insufficient and uncertain evidence to say who died first between Angela Joaquin and Joaquin N.JR
● CA stated that they cannot say for certain on who die first because there is no sufficient evidence available. Thus, CA are compelled to
fall back upon the statutory presumption. Hence, the son Joaquin Navarro, Jr. aged 30, must be deemed to have survived his mother,
Angela Joaquin, who was admittedly above 60 years of age under Rule 123,sec 69, subsec (ii), Rules of Court)

Issues:
1. Whether or Not sec 69 (ii) of Rule 123 of the rules of court is applicable in this case.
2. Whether or Not Art 43 of the New Civil Code is applicable in this case.

SC Ruling / Holding:
(Both numbers have the same ruling)
1. NO, SC said that neither of the two provisions is applicable for the reasons to be presently set forth.
Rule 123, section 69(ii) of the Revised Rules of Court: When two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
conflagration, and it is not (1) shown who died first, and there are no (2) particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
presumed from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes x x x.
Art 33 of the civil code of 1889, now Art 43 of the NCC provides: “Whenever a doubt arises as to which was the first to die of the two or
more persons x x x the presumption shall be that they died at the same time, and no transmission of rights from one to the other shall take place”

In this case, Both provision, as their language plainly implies, are intended as a substitute for facts, and so are not to be available
when there are facts. It is manifest from the language of se 69(ii) of Rule 123 that “the evidence of survivorship need not be direct; it may be
indirect, circumstancial, or inferential. Where there are facts, known or knowable, from which a rational conclusion can be made, the
presumption does not step in, and the rule of preponderance of evidence controls.”
SC’s opinion that the preceding testimony contains facts quite adequate to solve the problem of survivorship between Angela Joaquin and
Joaquin Navarro Jr and keep the statutory presumption out of case. It is believed that in the light of the conditions painted by Lopez, a fair and
reasonable inference can be arrived at, namely: that Joaquin Navarro, Jr died before his mother.
While the possibility that the mother died before the son can not be ruled out, it must be noted that this possibility is entirely speculative
and must yield to the more rational deduction from proven facts that it was the other way around. It can be deemed that it is much safer to hide
and stay in the German club because the mother even made frantic efforts to dissuade her husband and son from leaving the place and exposing
themselves to gun fire. It strongly tends to prove that, as the situation looked to her, the perils of death from staying were not so imminent. And it
lends credence to Mr Lopez’ statement that the collapse of the clubhouse occured about 40 minutes after Joaquin Navarro Jr was shot in the head
and dropped dedad, and that it was the collapse that killed the Mother.
The cA mentioned several causes besides the collapse of the building which could be the cause of death of the Mother. However all of
these are just speculatives and the probabilities, in the light of known facts are against them. One is that because the building had been set on fire
to trap the refugees inside, and there was no necessity for the Japanese to waste their ammunition except upon those who tried to leave the
premises.
In Conclusion, the presumption that ANgela Joaquin de Navarro died before her son is based purely on surmises speculations, or
conjectures without any sure foundation in the evidence. The opposite theory- that the mother outlived her son- is deduced from established facts
which, weighed by common experience, engender the inference as a very strong probability

Dissenting Opinions:

Other Notes: (I personally suggest that you guys read the case to understand more the issue, because there are many small details to pay
attention with)