168 - Guerrero v. St. Claire's Realty & Co., Ltd.

GUERRERO,
ET AL. v. ST. CLARE’S REALTY CO., LTD.

September 2, 19831 | Vasquez, J. | AKGL | Deadman’s Statute

CASE SUMMARY: Andres Guerrero inherited a land from his parents. He entrusted the same to his sister
Cristina. Because of the latter’s sickness, her daughter loaned from Cristina’s cousin Manuel and mortgaged
the same land. The ownership of the land was transferred to Manuel by virtue of a purported Deed of Sale. It
was then sold to the defendants Guerreros. It was again sold to St. Clare’s Realty. The plaintiffs Guerreros
sued the defendants Guerreros, St. Clare’s Realty, alleging that the deeds of sale as inexistent. During trial, the
defendants Guerreros objected to the testimony of Cristina’s daughter Laura.
DOCTRINE: The “dead-man’s rule” does not apply to a witness who is not a party or assignor of a party or
person in whose behalf a case is being prosecuted.
The “dead man’s rule” does not apply where the case is not a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased
person, but a case where defendant is being sued for allegedly claiming ownership of plaintiffs lot without
basis.
NATURE: PETITION for review by certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

FACTS:
[Jose Guerrero, et al’s complaint]
• Sps. Isidoro Guerrero and Panay Ramos were the absolute owners of a parcel of land in San Dionisio,
Parañ aque, Rizal. Isidoro Guerrero verbally willed and ordained that the questioned lot be assigned
and adjudicated to his son Andres Guerrero as his share in the inheritance.
• Andres Guerrero physically possessed the lot and cultivated it through his tenant Dominador
Ramirez, who earned a 50% share. Andres Guerrero entrusted the land to his sister, Cristina
Guerrero, and allowed her to have the property cultivated and to retain the owner’s share in the
harvests.
o Cristina Guerrero continued as trustee of the deceased Andres Guerrero.
o As early as December 10, 1957, the land was surveyed by the Bureau of Lands for and in the
name of Andres Guerrero.
• Certain people who introduced themselves as agents or buyers of the land approached some of the
plaintiffs in order to secure their consent to the sale of the property. Said plaintiffs were informed
that the land was titled in the name of their cousin, Manuel Guerrero based on a deed of sale.
o a “Deed of Absolute Sale” purportedly executed by Manuel Guerrero in favor of the
defendants Guerreros.
o Guerreros sold the disputed lot in a “Deed of Absolute Sale” to the St. Clare’s Realty
Company, Ltd.
o long after the complaint in the present case has been filed, St. Clare’s Realty Company, Ltd.
executed a “Joint Venture Agreement” with the United Housing Corporation under which the
latter bound itself to develop the property into a residential subdivision.
[During trial]
• Laura Cervantes, daughter of Cristina Guerrero, testified that her Cristina had been sick for a long
time before she died. The money spent for the illness of her mother came from Manuel Guerrero. She
further testified that the land was lent by Andres Guerrero to Cristina Guerrero.
o Counsel for the defendants Guerreros objected to the line of questioning on the ground that
the said witness was testifying on matters which are prohibited under Sec. 20(a), Rule 1302.
o The court allowed the witness to continue her testimony subject to such objection.

1
JOSE GUERRERO, MARIA GUERRERO, MAGDALENA GUERRERO ESPIRITU, assisted by her husband CANDIDO ESPIRITU,
GREGORIO GUERRERO, CLARA GUERRERO, et al., petitioners-plaintiffs, vs. ST. CLARE’S REALTY CO., LTD., GUILLERMO T.
GUERRERO, CECILIA GUERRERO, assisted by ANGELO CARDEÑO, PERLINDA GUERRERO, etc. et al., respondents-
defendants.
2
Section 20, Rule 130. Disqualification by reason of interest or relationship. —The following persons cannot testify as to matters in
which they are interested, directly or indirectly as herein enumerated:
(a) Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case 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, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of
such deceased person or before such became of unsound mind.

• Defendants Guerreros filed a written motion to disqualify Laura Cervantes as a witness on the basis
of Section 20(a), Rule 130.
o The trial court granted the motion and declared that Laura Cervantes, Jose Cervantes
as well as other witnesses similarly situated, are disqualified to testify in the case.

[TC] Dismissed the complaint and Amended Complaint
[CA] Affirmed with modifications in regard to damages.

ISSUE: W/N the witnesses Laura Cervantes and Jose Cervantes were correctly disqualified from testifying in
the case and their testimonies excluded on the basis of Section 20(a), Rule 1303? NO!

RULING:
1. Laura Cervantes, et al. are mere witnesses.
• Laura Cervantes and Jose Cervantes are not parties in the present case, and neither are they
assignors of the parties nor “persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.”
o They are mere witnesses by whose testimonies the plaintiffs aimed to establish that it was
not Cristina Guerrero, but Andres Guerrero, who owned the disputed land at the time of its
alleged sale to Manuel Guerrero.
• It may be said that incompetency to testify established in the provision above quoted, affects only the
persons therein mentioned, and no others, that is, only parties plaintiff or their assignors, persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court)
o Mere witnesses who are neither parties plaintiff, nor their assignors, nor persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted, are not included in the prohibition.

2. The present case is not a claim or demand against the estate of the deceased Manuel Guerrero.
• The defendants Guerreros are not the executors or administrators or representatives of such
deceased. They are being sued as claimants of ownership in their individual capacities of the
disputed lot. The lot is not a part of the estate of Manuel Guerrero. Hence, the inapplicability of the
dead man’s rule.
• It has been held that statutes providing that a party in interest is incompetent to testify where the
adverse party is dead or insane, must be applied strictly in accordance with their express wording,
irrespective of their spirit. (Moran)
o It should be noted that after the mention of an executor or administrator the words or other
representative follows, which means that the word ‘representative’ includes only those who,
like the executor or administrator, are sued in their representative, not personal
capacity.
o That is emphasized by the law by using the words ‘against the estate of such deceased
persons’, which convey the idea of an estate actually owned by the deceased at the time the
case was brought and that, therefore, it is only his rights that are to be asserted and
defendant in the litigation by the person representing him, not the personal rights of such
representative.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby set aside. Let the
records of the case be remanded to the court of origin with instruction to the trial court to allow the plaintiffs
to complete their evidence, to cross-examine the defendants’ witnesses, and to present rebuttal evidence if
they so desire, and thereafter to decide the case anew.

3
Now, Sec. 32, Rule 130

168 - Guerrero v. St. Claire's Realty & Co., Ltd.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

168 - Guerrero v. St. Claire's Realty & Co., Ltd.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

168 - Guerrero v. St. Claire's Realty & Co., Ltd.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUERRERO,

ET AL. v. ST. CLARE’S REALTY CO., LTD.

You might also like