LEONOR MENDEZONA v ENCARNACION C.
VIUDA DE GOITIA, administratrix of - to render an account of the amounts collected by her husband Benigno Goitia, as
the estate of Benigno Goitia
March 11, 1930
DQ by Reason of Death or Insanity
VILLAMOR, J.
FACTS (as determined by CFI)//Note: 3rd issue is the one related to the topic.//
 Benigno Goitia was the representative and attorney-in-fact of the plaintiffs Leonor
Mendezona and Valentina Izaguirre in the joint-account partnership known as the
"Tren de Aguadas" of which Mendezona, owns 180 shares worth P18,000, and
Izaguirre owns 72 shares worth P7,200;
 Prior to 1915, Benigno Goitia, at that time the manager of the co-partnership,
collected the dividends for the plaintiffs, which he remitted to them every year;
 Prior to 1915, the usual dividends which Benigno Goitia forwarded to Mendezona
each year were P540, and to Izaguirre P216;
 From 1915 until his death in August, 1926, Benigno Goitia failed to remit to the
dividends upon their shares in the "Tren de Aguadas";
 Some time before his death, more particularly, in July, 1926, Benigno Goitia, who
was no longer the manager of the said business, receive as attorney-in-fact of both
plaintiffs, the amount of P90 as dividend upon plaintiff Mendezona's shares, and
P36 upon Izaguirre's stock;
Calculating the dividends due from 1915 to 1926, counsel for both plaintiffs filed their
claims with the committee of claims and appraisal of the estate of Benigno Goitia:
- Mendezona claimed the amount of P5,940; Izaguirre, P2,376.
The committee disapproved their claims. Both claimants appealed from the report of the
committee, and filed a new complaint with the CFI Manila which was later amended with
the approval of the court.
The defendant Encarnacion C. Vda, de Goitia answered the amended complaints, pleading
in special defense, that not having no knowledge of the supposed management of their
rights in the "Tren de Aguadas," and , furthermore, not having seen nor received any
money of the plaintiff's from said business, she is not in a position to render an account of
any sort to the plaintiffs, either in her own personal capacity or as judicial administratrix of
Benigno Goitia's intestate estate.
CFI Manila ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and ordered Encarnacion C. Vda, de Goitia as
judicial administratrix of Benigno Goitia's estate to:
- to render a judicial account of the intestate estate of the deceased Benigno Goitia
attorney-in-fact and representative of the plaintiffs Mendezona and Izaguirre in the co-
partnership "Tren de Aguadas" from 1915 to July, 1926.
Soon thereafter, the court, upon motion of the plaintiffs, rendered a suppletory judgment,
ordering Encarnacion to pay the plaintiff Mendezona the sum of P13,140 w/ legal interest,
and to pay the plaintiff Izaguirre P5,256 likewise w/ legal interest.
Hence this appeal via bill of exceptions
--------------------------------------
Encarnacion’s Arguments:
(1) The court has no jurisdiction to admit the amended complaints whereby the plaintiffs
claim P13,680 and P5,470 respectively, whereas the claims presented to the committee of
claims and appraisal were only for P5,940 and P2,376, respectively.
(2) The plaintiffs are not in reality interested parties in this case.
(3) Exhibits A and B, the plaintiffs' depositions, should not have been admitted as
evidence – plaintiffs’ depositions testify to a fact which took place before the death of their
attorney-in-fact Benigno Agoitia. This is prohibited under section 383, No. 7, of the Code
of Civil Procedure (now R130 S223)
--------------------------------------
WON a greater sum may be claimed before the court than was claimed before the
committee.
Held: Yes
Just as in ordinary actions in which the pleadings may be amended, so in the instant case,
the original complaint for the same amounts claimed before the committee was altered,
increasing the amounts, and the amended complaint was approved by the court and not
objected to by the adverse party. The character of the action throughout is the same.
WON the plaintiffs are interested parties in this case.
Held: Yes.
It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that Encarnacion demurred on the ground of
misjoinder of parties, or alleged such misjoinder in her answer. In accordance with S93 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, she has waived the right to raise any objection on the ground
that the plaintiffs are not the real parties in interest, or that they are not the owners of the
stock in question.
WON Exhibits A and B are admissible as evidence.
Held: Yes
When these depositions were read in court, Encarnacion objected to their admission,
invoking section 383, No. 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Her objection referred mainly
to the following questions:
1. Did Mr. Benigno Goitia render you an account of your partnership in the "Tren de
Aguadas?" — Yes, until the year 1914.
2. From the year 1915, did Mr. Benigno Goitia send you any report or money on account
of profits upon your shares? — He sent me nothing, nor did he answer, my letters.
3. did you ever ask him to send you a statement of your account — Yes, several times by Encarncacion admits having found a book of accounts kept by the decedent showing an
letter, but I never received an answer. item of P90 for the account of Leonor Mendezona and another of P36 for the account of
Valentina Izaguirre, which agrees with the statement of Ruperto Santos, who succeeded
(a) The first of these questions tends to show the relationship between the principals and Benigno Goitia in the administration of said partnership, to the effect that the deceased
their attorney-in-fact Benigno Goitia up to 1914. Supposing it was error to permit such a attorney-in-fact had collected the amounts due the plaintiffs as dividends on their shares for
question, it would not be reversible error, for that very relationship is proved by Exhibits C the months of May and June, 1926, or P90 for Leonor Mendezona, and P36 for Valentina
to F, and H to I. As to the other two questions, it is to be noted that the deponents deny Izaguirre, amounts which had not been remitted by the deceased to the plaintiffs.
having received from the deceased Goitia any money on account of profits on their shares,
since 1915. The judgment appealed form is hereby, affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So
ordered.
(b) The claimants' denial that a certain fact occurred before the death of their attorney-in-
fact Benigno Agoitia does not come within the legal prohibitions (S383, No. 7, Code of
Civil Procedure). The law prohibits a witness directly interested in a claim against the
estate of a decedent from testifying upon a matter of fact which took place before the death
of the deceased. The underlying principle of this prohibition is to protect the intestate estate
from fictitious claims. But this protection should not be treated as an absolute bar or
prohibition from the filing of just claims against the decedent's estate.

The facts in the case of Maxilom vs. Tabotabo, differ from those in the case at bar. In that
case, the plaintiff Maxilom liquidated his accounts with the deceased Tabotabo during his
lifetime, with the result that there was a balance in his favor and against Tabotabo of
P312.37, Mexican currency. The liquidation was signed by both Maxilom and Tabotabo. In
spite of this, some years later, or in 1906, Maxilom filed a claim against the estate of
Tabotabo for P1,062.37, Mexican currency, alleging that P750 which included the 1899
liquidation had not really been received, and that therefore instead of P312.37, Mexican
currency, that liquidation should have shown a balance of P1,062.37 in favor of Maxilom.
It is evident that in view of the prohibition of section 383, paragraph 7, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, Maxilom could not testify in his own behalf against Tabotabo's estate, so as to
alter the balance of the liquidation made by and between himself and the decedent. But in
the case before us there has been no such liquidation between the plaintiffs and the
deceased Goitia. They testify, denying any such liquidation. To apply to them the rule that
"if death has sealed the lips of one of the parties, the law seals those of the other," would be
to exclude all possibility of a claim against the testamentary estate. This was not the
legislator's intention.

The plaintiffs did not testify to a fact which took place before their representative's death,
but on the contrary denied that it had taken place at all, i.e. they denied that a liquidation
had been made or any money remitted on account of their shares in the "Tren de Aguadas"
which is the ground of their claim. It was incumbent upon Encarnacion to prove by proper
evidence that the affirmative proposition was true, either by bringing into court the books
which the attorney-in-fact was in duty bound to keep, or by introducing copies of the drafts
kept by the banks which drew them, as was the decedents's usual practice according to
Exhibit I, or by other similar evidence.