Sanson vs.
CA The rule is exclusive and cannot be construed to extend its scope by
Petitioners: FELICITO G. SANSON et al
Respondents: HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH
DIVISION and MELECIA T. SY, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE
INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JUAN BON FING SY
Facts:
1. Petitioners Felicito G. Sanson (Felicito), his sister Celedonia
(Celedonia) Sanson-Saquin, Eduardo Montinola Jr. and his mother
Angeles Montinola (Sanson, et al) claimed that the deceased Juan
Bon Fing Sy was indebted to them.
2. in their capacity as creditors, they filed a petition for the settlement
of the estate of the deceased before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Iloilo City.
3. During the hearing, Felicito and Celedonia testified in favor of each
other‘s claim, and Jade Montinola testified in favor of her husband‘s
(Eduardo) and her mother-in-law‘s (Angeles) claim.
4. Their testimonies were supported by checks allegedly issued by the
deceased before his death. These testimonies and evidences were
countered by Melencia T. Sy, the surviving spouse and appointed
administratrix of the deceased‘s estate by invoking the Dead Man‘s
Statute which according to her, disqualifies the witnesses from
testifying.
5. The RTC, upon finding that the Dead Man‘s Statute does not apply
to the witnesses ruled in favor of Sanson, et al. Thus, ordering the
administratrix to pay in due course the respective amount due to
Sanson et al.
6. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside RTC‘s decision.
Hence, this appeal to the High Court.
Issue: Whether or not the Dead Man‘s Statute applies to the witnesses
presented by Sanson, et al.
Held:
As for the administratrix‘s invocation of the Dead Man‘s Statute, the
same does not likewise lie. The rule renders incompetent: 1) parties to a
case; 2) their assignors; or 3) persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted.
implication so as to disqualify persons not mentioned therein. Mere
witnesses who are not included in the above enumeration are not
prohibited from testifying as to a conversation or transaction between
the deceased and a third person, if he took no active part
therein.(Underscoring supplied) Jade is not a party to the case. Neither
is she an assignor nor a person in whose behalf the case is being
prosecuted. She testified as a witness to the transaction.
In any event, what the Dead Man‘s Statute proscribes is the admission
of testimonial evidence upon a claim which arose before the death of the
deceased. The incompetency is confined to the giving of testimony.
Since the separate claims of Sanson and Celedonia are supported by
checks-documentary evidence, their claims can be prosecuted on the
bases of said checks.
This brings this Court to the matter of the authenticity of the signature of
the deceased appearing on the checks issued to Sanson and
Celedonia. By Celedonia‘s account, she “knows” the signature of the
deceased.
While the foregoing testimonies of the Sanson siblings have not faithfully
discharged the quantum of proof under Section 22, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence which provides that “the handwriting of a
person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or
has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted
or been charged and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
such person” x x x not only did the administratrix fail to controvert the
same; from a comparison with the naked eye of the deceased‘s
signature appearing on each of the checks-exhibits of the Montinolas
with that of the checks-exhibits of the Sanson siblings all of which
checks were drawn from the same account, they appear to have been
affixed by one and the same hand.
In fine, as Sanson, et al. have, by their evidence, substantiated their
claims against the estate of the deceased, the burden of evidence had
shifted to the administratrix who, however, expressly opted not to
discharge the same when she manifested that she was dispensing with
the presentation of evidence against the claims.