Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > November 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4389 November 10, 1908 - GLICERIA MARELLA v. VICENTE REYES

012 Phil 1:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4389. November 10, 1908. ]

GLICERIA MARELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VICENTE REYES, administrator of the intestate estate of Filomeno Encarnacion, and JOSE T. PATERNO, Defendants-Appellees.

Vicente Ilustre, for Appellant.

Gabriel & Borbon, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. ESTATES; INTERVENTION ON MOTION. —Intervention, as a defendant, may be permitted in an action upon motion and without a cross-complaint, following Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Banco Español-Filipino (11 Phil. Rep., 253).

2. ID.; ORAL CONTRACT FOR CONVEYANCE OF REALTY; CIVIL CODE. —A contract, made before the Code of Civil Procedure, between a deceased person and his wife on the one part, and the plaintiff on the other, involving real estate and not in writing, held valid, and that the delivery of the title deeds of the property was equivalent to the delivery of the property itself, which should therefore have been excluded from the inventory of the estate. (Arts. 1280 and 1464, Civil Code; Soriano v. Cortes, 8 Phil. Rep., 459; Guerrero v. Miguel, 10 Phil. Rep., 52.)

3. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; INCOMPETENT WITNESS; OBJECTION; WAIVER. —The acceptance of an incompetent witness in a civil suit, as well as the allowance of improper questions that may be put to him while on the stand, is a matter within the discretion of the opposing litigant, who may assert his right by timely objection or he may waive it. Failure to object operates as a waiver. Once admitted, the testimony is in the case for what it is worth, and the judge has no power to disregard it for the sole reason that it could have been excluded if objected to, nor can he strike it out on his own motion.


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


In the inventory of the estate of Filomeno Encarnacion there were included the four parcels of land which are the subject of this action, which is brought against his administrator to have them excluded from the inventory as being the property of the plaintiff. The administrator did not oppose the relief asked for, but Jose T. Paterno, who was a creditor of the deceased for a claim allowed by the commissioners in the amount of P51,595.02, made two motions — one to be substituted in the administrator’s place as defendant, and the other to be allowed to intervene as a codefendant. The intervention was allowed and judgment was rendered in the Court of First Instance of Batangas adverse to the plaintiff.

The case presents two questions. First, was the intervention proper? Second, should the real property claimed by the plaintiff have been excluded from the inventory?

The appellant attacks the procedure for intervention, which was merely upon motion and not by a cross-complaint, as apparently required by a literal reading of section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Since the decision by this court of the case of Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Banco Español-Filipino, 1 on September 9, 1908, where it appears from the record, as it may be inferred from the decision a similar procedure was sustained, it must be understood that this court allows such an intervention, accepting, in the case of a defendant who unites in the defense, an answer instead of a complaint in accordance with the nature of the remedy, rather than with the literal wording of the section.

The intervener did not lose the benefit of the order of intervention by reason of his subsequent motion to be substituted, which was properly denied.

In refusing to order the exclusion of this land from the inventory, the judge based his decision largely upon the rejection of what he considered decisive testimony given by the plaintiff in person. She presented herself at the trial as a witness, was sworn, examined and cross-examined without objection as to her competency, nor does that question appear to have been raised until stated by the judge in his decision. He says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The evidence given by the plaintiff in this suit can not be considered. (See subdivision 7 of section 383, Act No. 190.) All of the acts sworn to by her took place before the death of Filomeno Encarnacion, and the fact that his wife was present and is still living is not sufficient to render the plaintiff a competent witness, because it has not been shown that the widow of the deceased herself took part in the liquidation of accounts or was a party to the transaction, inasmuch as the money which the plaintiff lent she lent to the deceased and not his Wife, Andrea Goco."cralaw virtua1aw library

The section cited from the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 383. . . .

"7. Parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in w hose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, can not testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind."cralaw virtua1aw library

Had the opposing party interposed an objection to this witness on the ground of incompetency, her testimony could not have been received. His omission to object to her operated as a waiver. The acceptance of an incompetent witness to testify in a civil suit, as w ell as the allowance of improper questions that may be put to him while on the stand is a matter resting in the discretion of the litigant. He may assert his right by timely objection or he may waive it, either expressly or by silence. In any case the option rests with him. Once admitted, the testimony is in the case for what it is-worth and the judge has no power to disregard it for the sole reason that it could have been excluded, if it had been objected to, nor to strike it out on his own motion. The disqualification of witnesses found in rules of evidence of this character, is one not founded on public policy but for the protection and convenience of litigants, and which consequently lies within their control.

Filomeno Encarnacion died in 1901. The plaintiff testified that on different occasions she lent him money and that in 1898 he and his wife, Andrea Goco, stated their account with her, resulting in a balance in her favor, which they promised to pay and as a guaranty of payment to give her their title papers consisting of a possessory information; that in 1899 they came to her house saying that as they had no money to pay their debt, it would be better that she should take the land therefor, permitting them, however, to continue cultivating it, upon the condition that after deducting the working expenses, one-half of the crop should go to her; that this was an oral agreement, not reduced to writing on account of the confusion of the revolution and war with the United States; that thereafter on demanding her one-half of the product of the land, Andrea Goco told her that there had been no crops owing to the impossibility of farming, on account of the death of their animals; and that, thereafter Andrea Goco, then a widow, stated the case to the administrator, to whom and to the commissioners, the plaintiff presented her claim, showing a balance in her favor of P1,814. She also produced before them the possessory information in the name of the deceased. Her testimony is corroborated and, indeed, her contention is substantially proved independently of what she said, by her brother, Juan Goco, and Aguedo Cebrera, and is confirmed by Emiliano Encarnacion, who stated that when as a creditor he demanded of the widow of the deceased the title papers of the land for use in court, she replied that she did not have them for the reason that she had delivered them to the plaintiff as guaranty of a debt which she and her husband had owed her and that she made no claim to this land.

Upon the authority of cases heretofore decided in this court, we hold that the contract made between the deceased and his wife, on one part, and the plaintiff on the other, although not in writing, was valid, and that the delivery of the title deeds of the property was equivalent in its effect to a delivery of the property itself. (Civil Code, arts. 1280 and 1464; Soriano v. Cortes, 8 Phil. Rep., 459; Guerrero v. Miguel, 10 Phil. Rep., 52.)

Consequently the land should have been excluded from the inventory and the plaintiff should have her relief.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance is hereby reversed without the costs of this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 11 Phil. Rep., 233.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





November-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4621 November 2, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUANA AYARDI

    011 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 3712 November 4, 1908 - CANDIDO CONCEPCION v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 3879 November 4, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PRUDENCIO ARCOS

    011 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 4238 November 4, 1908 - FRANK B. INGERSOLL v. VENTURA CHUI-TIAN LAY, ET AL.

    011 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 4605 November 4, 1908 - IGNACIO REMONTAN v. ALEJANDRO CABACUNGAN

    011 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 4440 November 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO GALANCO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 4232 November 7, 1908 - FELIX BAUTISTA v. AQUILINA TIONGSON, ET AL.

    011 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 4389 November 10, 1908 - GLICERIA MARELLA v. VICENTE REYES

    012 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 3753 November 11, 1908 - HERRANZ & GARRIZ v. ROMAN BARBUDO

    012 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 4515 November 11, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO SERVILLAS

    012 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 4777 November 11, 1908 - SUILIONG & CO. v. SILVINA CHIO-TAYSAN

    012 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 4450 November 11, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUCINA MACASPAC

    012 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 4636 November 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON NERI ABEJUELA

    012 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 4476 November 14, 1908 - FELIX SAMSON, ET AL. v. MARIANO HONRADO

    012 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 4517 November 14, 1908 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. VALENTIN INVENTOR

    012 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 4523 November 16, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS CARREON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 4581 November 16, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PABILO ESCALONA

    012 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 2994 November 18, 1908 - ILDEFONSA VARGAS v. AGATONA EGAMINO

    012 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 4082 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL LORENZANA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 4211 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SECUNDINO MENDEZONA

    012 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 4457 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMONA ESCOBAÑAS

    012 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 4607 November 18, 1908 - P. D. COLBERT v. E. M. BACHRACH

    012 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 4740 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 4774 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. H. BARNES

    012 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 4779 November 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIA VEDRA

    012 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 4821 November 20, 1908 - J. McMICKING v. T. KIMURA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 4314 November 21, 1908 - LORENZA QUISON, ET AL. v. HIGINA SALUD

    012 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 4315 November 21, 1908 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    012 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 4671 November 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO J. TORRES

    012 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 4675 November 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO MENDIOLA

    012 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 4722 November 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TAYCO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 4597 November 23, 1908 - JOSE GARCIA RON v. LA COMPANIA DE MINAS DE BATAN

    012 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 4795 November 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO BOSTON

    012 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 4557 November 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO ROSAL

    012 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 1598 November 30, 1908 - JOSE PALACIOS v. MUNICIPALITY OF CAVITE

    012 Phil 140