Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 377 views

    Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the testimonies of the plaintiffs regarding alleged statements made by the now-deceased Go Checo were prohibited. Generally, a person cannot testify about transactions with a deceased person. While there is an exception for cases involving fraud, the Court found no clear proof of fraud in this case. Therefore, the purpose of preventing false testimony against those who cannot defend themselves required applying the prohibition. The action was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    377 views1 page
    The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the testimonies of the plaintiffs regarding alleged statements made by the now-deceased Go Checo were prohibited. Generally, a person cannot testify about transactions with a deceased person. While there is an exception for cases involving fraud, the Court found no clear proof of fraud in this case. Therefore, the purpose of preventing false testimony against those who cannot defend themselves required applying the prohibition. The action was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    go chi gun v co cho

    Original Title

    78. Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the testimonies of the plaintiffs regarding alleged statements made by the now-deceased Go Checo were prohibited. Generally, a person cannot testify about transactions with a deceased person. While there is an exception for cases involving fraud, the Court found no clear proof of fraud in this case. Therefore, the purpose of preventing false testimony against those who cannot defend themselves required applying the prohibition. The action was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    377 views1 page

    Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the testimonies of the plaintiffs regarding alleged statements made by the now-deceased Go Checo were prohibited. Generally, a person cannot testify about transactions with a deceased person. While there is an exception for cases involving fraud, the Court found no clear proof of fraud in this case. Therefore, the purpose of preventing false testimony against those who cannot defend themselves required applying the prohibition. The action was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Go Chi Gun v.

    Co Cho (Short title) ISSUE/S


    G.R. No. L-5208 | 96 SCRA 622 | February 28, 1955 1. W/N the testimonies of the plaintiffs as to the alleged statements of the deceased
    Plaintiff-Appellants: GO CHI GUN alias CHIPBUN GOCHEGO, GO AWAY alias LIM are within the prohibition.
    KOC and FEDERICO M. CHUA HIONG
    Defendant-Appellee: CO CHO, TECSON, DONATO GO TIAK GIAP, CESARIO GO RULING & RATIO
    TEK HONG, ALFONSO GO TEK BIO, MARIANO TEK LIONG, DOMINGO GO TEK - YES.
    LUNG, GO GIOK TE, GO CHUNG TE AND PACIFIO YAP 1. The testimonies of the plaintiffs as to the alleged statements of the deceased
    to him are well within the purpose and intent of the prohibition.
    DOCTRINE 2. If persons having a claim against the estate of the deceased were allowed to
    GENERAL RULE: A person cannot testify as to any matter of fact concurring before testify as to the supposed statements made by him (deceased person), many
    the death of such deceased persons. would be tempted to falsely impute statements to deceased persons as the
    EXCEPT: The evidence of fraud be clear, beyond a reasonable doubt. latter can no longer deny or refute them
    3. The purpose of the law is to “guard against the temptation to give false
    FACTS testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the surviving
    1. Go Checo, a chinaman, died in Saigon, Indo Chino, leaving real and personal party." (Tongco vs. Vianzon, 60 Phil., 698.)
    properties in the Philippines. The intestate left children by two marriages. Most 4. While there is an EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, where the decedent had
    of the children are minors. been guilty of fraud. The rule has been adopted to promote justice and not
    2. Each of his children received properties or cash amounting to P3,995. to shield fraud.
    3. The project of partition is signed by one Joaquin A. Go Cuay as guardian ad a. In the case at bar, there is NO PROOF OF FRAUD.
    litem of the minors and was approved by the court 5. Fraud, or breach of trust, ought not lightly to be imputed to the living; for, the
    4. Paulino Gocheco instituted guardianship proceedings for his minor brothers legal presumption is the other way; and as to the dead, who are not here to
    and sisters, and he was appointed guardian for their persons and properties answer for themselves, it would be the height of injustice and cruetly, to
    on May 20, 1916. disturb their ashes, and violate the sanctity of the grave, unless the
    5. Paulino Gocheco died on April 24, 1943. His eldest son instituted intestate evidence of fraud be clear, beyond a reasonable doubt."
    proceedings. However, PLAINTIFFS, the siblings of Paulino filed this action.
    DISPOSITION
    6. PLAINTIFFS claim that Paulino, by fraudulent means, obtained the properties
    For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
    adjudicated to him in the project of partition and so he acquired same in trust
    hereby, reversed, and the action dismissed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellees.
    for their common benefit. Thus, they prayed for the declaration of nullity of the
    So ordered.
    Intestate proceedings.
    7. When the plaintiffs were called upon the testify to these supposed statements,
    counsel for the defendants immediately objected on the ground that plaintiffs
    were incompetent to testify.
    a. The court allowed the testimony over the objection, holding that as
    the action is brought against the defendants inn their personal
    capacity, and the claim is not directed against the estate Paulino
    Gocheco but against the latter personally, the rule invoked is not
    applicable.
    8. CFI: Annulled the project of partition in the intestate proceedings of the
    deceased Go checo. Hence, this appeal.
    9. DEFENDANTS contend that the trial court erred allowing the plaintiffs to testify
    as to an alleged fraudulent statement by the deceased Go checo.

    Page 1 of 1

    You might also like