Marcelino Tongco uncle of the petitioner married respondent Anastacia Vianzon in 1894. The uncle died in 1925 leaving his wife. But shortly before he died Marcelino had filed claims in a cadastral case asking for titles to certain properties in the name of his conjugal partnership.
Upon his death the niece of the deceased Josefa Tongco, petitioner in this case, was named administrator of his estate. The thing was, right after his death, his pending claims resulted in a favorable corresponding decrees for the lots previously claimed by him and were then issued under his name.
His widow then began action manifesting to the court and informing about the death of her spouse presenting a motion for revision of the decrees of which she filed just right in time within its one year prescription period. And so the Court of First Instance ordered new decrees for the said lots and certificates of titles were issued under the widow’s name.
Josefa Tongco the administrator of Marcelino’s estate, niece of the said deceased filed action against the widow submitting a motion for a new trial and for recovery of specified property and damages. The motion for a new trial was denied by the CFI.
Upon this decision the administrator appealed to CA which merely affirmed the earlier decision. Hence, the petition for certiorari.
The issue in this case is that in the trial, counsel for the administrator assailed the widow’s competency to testify as witness and in support to this claim he thereby invoked Section 383 of the then Code of Civil Procedures which provides:
“Parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in whose behalf an action or preoceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person… cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person..”
The question here is “can the widow be allowed to testify?”
Court held YES.
The actions were not brought ‘against’ the administrator of the estate, neither were they brought upon claims ‘against’ the estate. The administrator in the first case should have even enforced the demand ‘by’ the estate as what conjugal partnership in law dictates.
The presumption in Civil Law is that all the properties of the spouses are deemed that of a partnership property in the absence of proof to the contrary that it belongs exclusively to the husband or the wife. And the widow in this case has even proved decisively and conclusively exclusive ownership of the property in question after her husband’s death.
The widow wins this case.
