Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Icard v. Masigan

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    48 views1 page
    icard v masigan

    Original Title

    85. Icard v. Masigan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    icard v masigan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    48 views1 page

    Icard v. Masigan

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    icard v masigan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Icard v. Masigan 1. Section 383, par.

    7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is now


    GR# L-47442 | 71 PHIL 419| April 8, 1941 Rule 123, section 26, paragraph (c), of the Rules of Court, is
    Petitioner: In the matter of the estate of George M. Icard, deceased, designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has closed
    JOSEPH K. ICARD the lips of the party defendant, in order to remove from the surviving
    Respondent: CLARO MASIGAN, as special administrator of the estate party, the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious
    of George M. Icard; and EFFIE CARLAND ICARD, claims against the deceased.
    2. Where, as in the instant case, the purpose of the oral testimony is to
    DOCTRINE: The Dead Man’s Statue ceases to apply when the purpose of prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear written
    evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased, the law
    the oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by
    has certainly no reason for its application. Ratione cessante, cessat
    clear written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased.
    ipsa lex. (The reason for the law itself ceasing, the law itself ceases.)
    3. Also, it is clear that Joseph K. Icard had an interest in the mining
    FACTS
    claims aforementioned, as evidenced by the deed of sale executed
    1. The Antamok Central Mining Group of mining claims were owned by
    in favor of the Big Wedge Mining Company and the compromise
    Fred M. Harden, George M. Icard (deceased), and Joseph K. Icard.
    agreement approved by the court in the civil case of the CFI of
    These mining claims were sold to Big Wedge Mining Company, the
    Manila.
    deed of sale was executed jointly by the owners, plaintiff was
    4. The amount of this interest being undetermined, Joseph K. Icard
    represented by his Atty-in-fact, George Icard.
    may, if he wishes to, properly claim one-half of P39,478.16, under
    2. Due to a dispute with Big Wedge, a compromise agreement was
    the legal provision that "the interests of the co-owners shall be
    approved by the court wherein the sum of P39,478.16 was to be paid
    presumed to be equal until the contrary is proved.” Instead, he
    to Joseph in full settlement of his and George’s full interest. The
    claims P2,000 only, and it is this reduced claim which he seeks to
    order directed that said amount be divided between Joseph and the
    establish by his oral testimony.
    estate of the deceased George in the manner and proportion to be
    determined by the probate.
    DISPOSITION
    3. Joseph may claim half of the P39,478.16 if he wishes to, under the
    Judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellants.
    legal provision that ‘the interests of the co-owners shall be presumed
    equal until the contrary is proved.
    4. Instead, Joseph only claims P2000, and it is this reduced claim,
    which he seeks to establish by his oral testimony.
    5. The administrator's appeal to this Court rests mainly on the theory
    that the probate court erred in allowing the claimant to testify to the
    services rendered by him in favor of his father, because the action
    being one against the administrator of a deceased person, plaintiff
    cannot be allowed to testify as to any matter of fact which occurred
    before the death of such deceased person.

    Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE
    1. W/N Joseph’s oral testimony may be admitted?

    RULING & RATIO


    - YES

    You might also like