Bordalba v. CA (G.R. No. 112443.

January 25, 2002) YNARES-SANTIAGO, J: Facts: In 1980, herein petitioner was granted a Free Patent and was issued an Original Certificate of Title over the herein subject lot. She caused the subdivision and titling of the said lot into 6 parcels, as well as the conveyance of the two parcels thereof. Private respondents, however, claimed ownership over the same lot by virtue of an extrajudicial partition made as early as 1947. Hence, they filed a complaint to declare void the Free Patent as well as the cancellation of the titles issued. The trial court, finding that fraud was employed by petitioner in obtaining the Free Patent, declared said free patent and title void and ordered its cancellation. However, the purchaser and mortgagee of the two parcels conveyed were declared in good faith, hence, upheld their rights over the property. Both petitioner and private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court. It ruled that private respondents are entitled only to 1/3 portion of the lot and petitioner should be ordered to reconvey only 1/3 of the lot to the private respondents. Petitioner contends that the testimonies given by the witnesses for private respondents which touched on matters occurring prior to the death of her mother should not have been admitted by the trial court, as the same violated the dead man's statute. Likewise, petitioner questions the right of private respondents to inherit from the late Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion Jayme-Baclay, as well as the identity between the disputed lot and the parcel of land adjudicated in the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition. Issue: Whether or not there is a violation of dead mans statute? Held: No. The dead man's statute does not operate to close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his knowledge in any other way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or communication made by the deceased to the witness. Since the claim of private respondents and the testimony of their witnesses in the present case is based, inter alia, on the 1947 Deed of Extra-judicial Partition and other documents, and not on dealings and communications with the deceased, the questioned testimonies were properly admitted by the trial court. Likewise untenable is the claim of petitioner that private respondents are not legal heirs of Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion Jayme-Baclay. Other than their bare allegations to dispute their heirship, no hard evidence was presented by them to substantiate their allegations. Besides, in order that an heir may assert his right to the property of a deceased, no previous judicial declaration of heirship is necessary.