Tongco vs.

Vianzon
September 20, 1927| Malcolm, J. | Dead Mans Statute
PETITIONER: Inestate estate of Marcelino Tongco, represented by JOSEFA TONGCO, administratrix
RESPONDENT: Anastacia Vianzon

SUMMARY: Before Marcelino died, he presented claims in a cadastral case over certain parcels of land. Shortly after he died,
these parcels of land were named in his conjugal partnership with Anastacia. Josefa, Marcelinos niece and appointed
administratrix, filed an action for recovery of these properties. The trial court ruled in favor of Anastacia, but Josefa
questioned the fact that the trial court admitted Anastacias testimony. SC ruled that TC did not err in admitting Anastacias
testimony because a cadastral case does not involve a petitioner and a defendant, and the case was commenced by the
estate and not against it, as provided in the provision.

DOCTRINE: Dead mans statute is subject to waiver, and is not applicable in a cadastral case where there is neither a
defendant nor a petitioner.

FACTS: persons in whose behalf an action or proceeding is

1. Marcelino Tongco and Anastacia Vianzon contrated
marriage on July 5, 1984. Marcelino died on July 8, 1925.
2. Josefa Tongco, Marcelinos niece, was named
administratrix of the estate. Shortly before Marcelinos
death, he presented claims in a cadastral case in which
he asked for titles to certain properties in the name of
the conjugal partnership between him and his wife.
prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or
other representative of a deceased person, upon a
claim or demand against the estate of such deceased
person, cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person.
3. The purpose of the statute is to guard against he
temptation to give false testimony in regard to the
transaction in question on the part of the surviving party.

3. The corresponding decrees for these lots were issued
in the name of the conjugal partnership not long after his
death.
4. Anastacia instituted a motion for the revision of
certain decrees (issued not long after Marcelinos death).
The Judge of First Instance Rovira held that the original
certificates should be set aside, and that new ones be
issued in the name of Anastacia Vianzon.
5. Three months after, Josefa began an action against
Anastacia for the recovery of specified property and for
damages. The trial court decided in favor of Anastacia.
4. Closely interpreting the provision, the Court found
that there is no error that can be imputed to the trial
court in admitting the testimony of Anastacia, the widow.
The claim was presented in cadastral proceedings, where
in one sense, there is no plaintiff and there is no
defendant. The Court also took note that there has
already been a waiver when the adverse party undertook
to cross-examine the interested person with respect to
the prohibited matters.

6. Josefa assigns two major errors: (1) that the trial court
erred the appreciation of facts and (2) that the trial court
erred in ruling that Anastacia, the widow, was competent
to testify.

ISSUE: W/N the property in dispute should be assigned

to the estate of Marcelino Tongco or should be set aside
as belonging exclusively to the widow

HELD: Trial courts decision upheld.

RATIO:

1. By reason of Article 1407 of the civil Code, the

presumption is that all the property of the spouses is
partnership property in the absence of proof that it
belongs exclusively to the husband or to the wife.

2. Tongcos counsel argued that Anastacias testimony

should not be received on the ground that Section 383 of
the code of Civil Procedure provides that Parties or
assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or