Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

Bordalba v. Court of Appeals 8.

Bordalba contended that the testimonies for private respondents which

GR # 112443 | 374 SCRA 555 | January 25, 2002 touched on matters occurring prior to the death of her mother should not have
Petitioner: TERESITA P. BORDALBA been admitted in violation of the dead man’s statute. And also question the
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF NICANOR JAYME, namely, rights of private respondents to inherit and as to the identity of the disputed lot
CANDIDA FLORES, EMANNUEL JAYME, DINA JAYME DEJORAS, EVELIA in the Deed of extrajudicial partition.
JAYME BACLAY 1. W/N the dead man statue applies
2. W/N the disputed lot is the subject lot in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition.
Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of RULING & RATIO
the latter, while holding title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. - NO
o The dead man’s statute does not operate to close the mouth of a
FACTS witness as to any matter of fact coming to his knowledge in any other
1. Subject lot is originally owned by the late spouses Carmeno Jayme and way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or
Margarita Espina de Jayme. In 1947, an extrajudicial partition, was executed, communication made by the deceased to the witness.
describing said parcel of land. Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez, Bordalba’s o Since the claim of private respondents and the testimony of their
mother, filed with the RTC an amended application for the registration of the witnesses in the present case is based, inter alia, on the 1947 Deed
lot described. of Extra-judicial Partition and other documents, and not on dealings
2. Vda. de Perez alleged that the lot sought to be registered was originally a part and communications with the deceased, the questioned testimonies
of a land owned by her late parents, the Sps. de Jayme; and that 1/3 of said were properly admitted by the trial court.
land was adjudicated to her in an extrajudicial partition. She further stated that - YES
a portion of the lot for which title is applied for is occupied by Nicanor Jayme o Bardolba’s mother acknowledged in her application for registration of
with her permission. Lot No. 1242 that the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition was the source
3. Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion Jayme-Baclay filed their opposition 6 of her claim over the lot sought to be registered.
contending that said application included the 1/3 portion inherited by them in o She further admitted that the lot now known as Lot No. 1242 (799-C)
the 1947 extrajudicial partition. The case was dismissed for lack of interest of was part of the parcel of land inherited by her and her co-heirs, to the
the paties. extent of 1/3 share each.
4. Bordalba subsequently filed an application, seeking the issuance of a Free o Under Section 31, Rule 130, of the Revised Rules on Evidence,
Patent over the same lot subject of the aborted application of her mother, where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration,
Elena Jayme. Bordalba was successfully granted Free Patent. or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the
5. Upon learning of the issuance of the Free Patent in favor of Bordalba and an property, is evidence against the former.
OCT, as well as the conveyances made by Bordalba involving the subject lot,
private respondents filed with the RTC, the instant complaint against DISPOSITION
Bordalba, Sps. Cabahug, Rural Bank of Mandaue and the Director of the Petition was denied.
Bureau of Lands.
6. Bordalba contended that she acquired the subject lot by purchasing it from her
mother. On cross-examination, Bordalba admitted that the properties of Sps.
De Jayme were partitioned by the heirs in 1947 but she was not aware of the
Extrajudicial Partition. But she did identify one of the signatures in the Deed
to be her mother’s.
7. The trial court, found that fraud was employed by Bordalba in obtaining Free
Patent. However, it declared that Sps. Cabahug and Rural Bank of Mandaue
are purchasers and mortgagee in good faith. The CA affirmed.

Page 1 of 1