CASE DIGEST ON JOAQUIN V.

NAVARRO
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com,
www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme
court case digests

CASE DIGEST ON JOAQUIN V. NAVARRO [93 P 257] - F: On 2/6/45, while the battle for the
liberation of Mla. was raging, the spouses Joaquin Navarro, Sr. (JN, Sr.) and Angela Joaquin (AJ),
together w/ their 3 daughters and their son Joaquin, Jr. (JN, Jr.) and the latter's wife, sought refuge in the
ground floor of the building known as the German Club. During their stay, the bldg. was packed w/
refugees, shells were exploding around, and the Club was set on fire. Simultaneously, the Japanese started
shooting at the people inside the bldg, especially those who were trying to escape. the 3 daughters were hit
and fell on the ground near the entrance; and JN, Sr. and his son decided to abandon the premises to seek a
safer haven. They could not convince AJ, who refused to join them, and so JN, Sr. and his son, JN, Jr. and
the latter's wife dashed out of the burning edifice. As they came out, JN, Jr. was shot in the head by a
Japanese soldier and immediately dropped. The others lay flat on the ground in front of the Club premises
to avoid the bullets. Minutes later, the Club, already on fire, collapsed, trapping many people, presumably
including AJ. JN, Sr., Mrs. JN, Jr. managed to reach an air raid shelter nearby and stayed there for about 3
days, until they were forced to leave bec. the shelling tore it open. They fled but unfortunately met Japanese
patrols who fired at them, killing the two.
The trial court found the deaths to have occurred in this order: 1st. The Navarro girls; 2nd. JN, Jr.; 3rd. AJ;
4th. JN, Sr. The CA found that the deaths occurred in the following order: 1st. The Navarro girls; 2nd. AJ;
3rd. JN, Jr.; 4th JN, Sr.

HELD: Where there are facts, known or knowable, from w/c a rational conclusion can be made, the
presumption (in the Rules of Court) does not step in, and the rules of preponderance of evidence controls.
Are there particular circumstances on record from w/c reasonable inference of survivorship bet. AJ and her
son can be drawn? Is Francisco Lopez' (the sole witness) testimony competent and sufficient for the
purpose?
It is our opinion that the testimony contains facts quite adequate to solve the problem of survivorship bet.
AJ and JN, Jr. and keep the statutory presumption out of the 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 JN, 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. JN, Jr., was killed, while running, in front of, and 15 meters from the Club. Still
in the prime of life, 30, he must have negotiated that distance in 5 seconds or less, and so died w/in that
interval from the time he dashed out of the bldg. AJ could have perished w/in those 5 or fewer seconds, but
the probabilities that she did seem very remote.
According to Lopez' testimony, the collapse of the club occurred about 40 minutes after JN, Jr. died, and it
was the collapse that killed AJ. The CA said that the interval bet. JN, Jr.'s death and the breaking down of
the edifice was "minutes." Even so, it was much longer than 5 seconds, long enough to warrant the
inference that AJ was still alive when her son expired.
The CA mentioned several causes, besides the bldg's collapse, by which AJ could have been killed. All
these causes are speculative. xxx Nor was AJ likely to have been killed by falling beams bec. the bldg. was
made of concrete and its collapse, more likely than not, was sudden. As to fumes, these do not cause
instantaneous death; certainly, not w/in the brief space of 5 seconds bet. her son's departure and his death.
It will be said that all this is indulging in inferences that are not conclusive. Sec. 69 (ii) of R 123 does not
require that the inference necessary to exclude the presumption therein provided be certain. It is the
"particular circumstances from w/c it (survivorship) can be inferred" that are required to be certain as tested
by the rules of evidence. In speaking of inference the rule can not mean beyond doubt, for "inference is
never certainty, but it may be plain enough to justify a finding of fact."
In conclusion, the presumption that AJ died before her son is based purely on surmises, speculations, or
conjectures w/o any sure foundation in evidence. The opposite theory is deduced from established facts
w/c, weighed by common experience, engender the inference as a very strong probability. Gauged by the
doctrine of preponderance of evidence by w/c civil cases are decided, this inference ought to prevail.

For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com