Go Chi Gun v.

Co Cho  On March 7, 1914, his son Paulino Gocheco instituted judicial proceedings for the
Testimonial Evidence; Dead Man’s Statute | February 28, 1955| Labrador, J. distribution of his estate in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The intestate left
children by two marriages.
Nature of Case: Appeal o In the first marriage with Ong So, who died in 1908, he was survived by his
Digest maker: Hernandez children Paulino Gocheco (26) Go Tua Tia (20) Go Pan Gui (18) Go Tua Ting
SUMMARY: After the death of Go Checo, his son Paulino instituted judicial proceedings for (16) Go Chi Gun (14) and Go Away (8). By his marriage with Yu Ui, who
the distribution of the former’s estate. The intestate left children by two marriages and each survived him, left two, Go Cheng Siu (7) and a child 20 months old.
children received properties or cash amounting to P3,995.56. Upon termination of the  The estate left by the intestate was valued at P44,017 by the commissioners on
intestate proceedings, Paulino applied for and was granted the guardianship of the persons appraisal. Each of Go Checo’s children received properties or cash amounting to
and properties of his minor brothers and sisters. Among these are the plaintiffs in this case. P3,995.56. The project of partition was signed by Joaquin A. Go Cuay as
The guardianship continued until the wards had become of age. Paulino died and his son guardian ad litem of the minors and was approved by the court
instituted intestate proceedings for the settlement of his estate.  Upon the termination of the intestate proceedings, Paulino Gocheco instituted
guardianship proceedings for his minor brothers and sisters, and he was appointed
After the settlement of Paulino’s estate, an action was instituted by the plaintiffs claiming guardian for their persons and properties on May 20, 1916. The guardianship
that Paulino, through fraudulent means, obtained properties adjudicated to them in the continued until all wards had become of age on September 15, 1931.
partition of Go Checo’s estate. They alleged that the properties and business conducted by  Paulino Gocheco died on April 24, 1943, and on January 10, 1944 his eldest son
Gocheco in his lifetime were owned in common by them and prayed that the partition in the instituted intestate proceedings for the settlement of his estate. These were
settlement of the estate of Paulino Gocheco and the approval of the partition of Go Checo’s terminated on March 23, 1947.
(their father) estate, be declared null and void as a result of fraud.  The present action was instituted by Go Chi Gun and Go Away on July 31, 1948
claiming that Paulino Gocheco, by fraudulent means, obtained the properties
In the trial court, plaintiffs testified as to a supposed fraudulent statement made to them by adjudicated to them in the project of partition and so he acquired same in trust for
the deceased Paulino during his lifetime, to the effect that their common father Go Checo their common benefit; and that the properties and business conducted by the said
had not left any properties. The defendants objected alleging that the plaintiffs were deceased Paulino Gocheco in his lifetime were owned in common by them with the
incompetent to testify thereto under Section 26 (c) of Rule 123 of the RoC (now Rule 130, deceased, in the proportion of 1/3 for each of the plaintiffs and 1/3 for the deceased
Section 23) . The trial court admitted the testimony holding that the rule invoked is not Paulino Gocheco. They pray that the project of partition in the proceedings for the
applicable since the claim is not directed against the estate of Paulino but against the latter settlement of the estate of the deceased Gocheco and the order of the court of May 11,
personally. The trial court found that the allegations of the complaint were established by a 1916 approving the partition, be declared null and void as a result of fraud, collusion
preponderance of evidence. and connivance of Paulino Gocheco and Joaquin A. Go Cuay, and that the properties
adjudicated to Paulino Gocheco, Go Chi Gun and Go Away in the project of partition
The appellants now contend inter alia that the trial court erred in admitting the plaintiffs’ be declared as their joint properties.
testimony and in finding that fraud was sufficiently proven.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds, namely; (1) that the action
is barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) that the complaint states no cause of
The SC reversed the Trial Court’s ruling and held that the alleged fraudulent statement was action. The motion was denied, so the defendants presented an answer (1) denying
inadmissible as it was testified to by incompetent witnesses. Section 26 (c) of Rule 123 of the specifically each and every one of the allegations of fraud supposed to have been
RoC (now Rule 130, Section 23) applies because the complaint is based on a supposed committed by Paulino Gocheco; (2) alleging, by way of special defense, that the cause
fraudulent act of the deceased, Paulino. The defendants therefore are being sued based on or causes of action which plaintiffs may have had are barred both by the statute of
their capacity as representatives and not on their personal capacity. Since the testimonies limitations of the statute on non-claims; and (3) alleging that the properties now
are now declared inadmissible, there is no proof sufficient in law to prove that the deceased being claimed by the plaintiffs have been acquired by prescription by defendants by
committed fraud in the distribution of their father's estate as to plaintiffs' share therein. actual and adverse possession, and as immediate successors in interest of their father,
publicly notoriously and adversely for more than 32 years.
DOCTRINE: The reason for the rule is that if persons having a claim against the estate of  Before the trial of the case Gocheco Brothers and Go Tecson were allowed to
the deceased or his properties were allowed to testify as to the supposed statements made intervene. In their answers these intervenors made specific denials of the supposed
by him (deceased person), many would be tempted to falsely impute statements to deceased frauds committed by the deceased Paulino Gocheco and set up the same special
persons as the latter can no longer deny or refute them, thus unjustly subjecting their defenses that the defendants have put up in their answer.
properties or rights to false or unscrupulous claims or demands. The purpose of the law is  The parties went to trial and thereafter the trial court found the allegations of the
to "guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard to the transaction in complaint have been established by a preponderance of the evidence. It annulled the
question on the part of the surviving party." project of partition in the intestate proceedings of the deceased Gocheco, declared
that the properties obtained by the deceased Paulino Gocheco in the said partition
proceedings are the common properties of plaintiffs Go Chi Gun and Go Away and
FACTS: the deceased Paulino Gocheco in the proportion of 1/3 for each of them; and ordered
 Go Checo, a chinaman, died in Saigon, Indo China on Feb 19, 1914, leaving real and defendants to render a correct and detailed accounting of the said properties and
personal properties in the Philippines
 business interest of said deceased Paulino Gocheco to the plaintiffs from 1916 up to 5. The reason for the rule is that if persons having a claim against the estate of the
the present. deceased or his properties were allowed to testify as to the supposed statements
 The defendants and intervenors have instituted this appeal against the decision. made by him (deceased person), many would be tempted to falsely impute
statements to deceased persons as the latter can no longer deny or refute them, thus
unjustly subjecting their properties or rights to false or unscrupulous claims or
ISSUE/S & RATIO: demands. The purpose of the law is to "guard against the temptation to give false
WON the testimony of the plaintiffs are prohibited under Section 26 of Rule 123 of the Rules of testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the surviving party."
court (now Rule 130, Section 23) – YES
1. The first issue involves the competency of the plaintiffs Go Chi Gun and Go Away to 6. It was only after Go Checo had died, such that he can no longer deny their
testify as to a supposed statement made to them by the deceased Paulino Gocheco statements, and after all possible witnesses or papers or circumstances have already
during his lifetime, to the effect that their common father Go Checo had not left any gone beyond recall because of the destruction of the public records, that the
properties. When Go Chi Gun and Go Away were called upon to testify, counsel for supposed statement is now brought forth and made the basis of the plaintiffs’ action.
the defendants immediately objected on the ground that plaintiffs were incompetent The Court is induced to believe that it is the death of the decedent and the latter’s
to testify thereto under the provisions of Section 26 (c) of Rule 123 of the Rules of disability to deny the supposed statement made by him, as well as the destruction of
court which provides: the records of the judicial proceedings, that must have tempted plaintiffs to bring the
SEC. 26. Persons who cannot testify generally, or because of certain relations to action. The case clearly falls within the spirit and terms of the prohibition contained
parties the following persons cannot be witnesses: in the rule.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Parties or assignors of parties to a case, persons in whose behalf a case is 7. The exception to the rule is where the decedent had been guilty of fraud. The fraud
prosecuted against an executor or administrator or other representative of a however must be sufficiently proven.
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 concurring before the death of such WON fraud was sufficiently proven – NO
deceased persons or before such person became of unsound mind;
 The trial court allowed the testimony over the objection, holding that 1. Plaintiffs-appellees claim that there was fraud because the properties assigned to the
as the action is brought against the defendants in their personal deceased Paulino Gocheco were assessed at their tax value, not at their market value.
capacity, and the claim is not directed against the estate Paulino This is no proof of fraud. To raise even a suspicion of fraud, it must be proved to the
Gocheco but against the latter personally, the rule invoked is not satisfaction of the court that the personal properties assigned to the plaintiffs-
applicable. appellees were overruled. Nothing to this effect was submitted.
2. The fact that the plaintiffs were in China and were minors at the time of the partition
2. The word "representative" in the statute has been explained thus: "If a party is so must have induced or necessitated adjudication of cash, or property easily
placed in a litigation that he is called upon to def end that which he has obtained convertible to cash, to them. Land is not productive unless buildings are construed
from a deceased person, and make the defense which the deceased might have had. if thereon, but these are expensive and require investment of capital and the returns
living, or to establish a claim which the deceased might have been interested to thereon and relatively the lowest. Then there is the Chines custom- insinuated but
establish, if living, then he may be said in that litigation to represent a deceased not proved at the trial of giving less or inheritance to daughters. Even among
person; but where he is not standing in the place of the deceased person, and Filipinos, sons are generally given more substantial shares than daughters. All of
asserting a right of the deceased which has descended to him from the deceased (that these circumstances could have induced the assignment of real properties to the
is, where the right of the deceased himself, at the time of his death, is not in any way deceased Paulino Gocheco and personal properties and cash to the plaintiffs-
involved), and the question is not what was the right of the deceased at the time of appellees. They explain the reason for the difference in the inheritance received and
his death, but merely to whom has the right descended, in such a contest neither exclude the probability of fraud. The partition was given the stamp of judicial
party can be said to represent the deceased," approval, and as a matter of principle and policy we should sustain its regularity, in
the absence of such cause or reason that the law itself fixes as a ground for invalidity.
3. The action of plaintiffs is based on a supposed fraudulent act of the deceased Paulino 3. Claim is also made that the deceased Paulino Gocheco connived with the
Gocheco, and its purpose is to allow plaintiffs to share in his estate. That Paulino Go guardian ad litem of the minors in keeping the latter ignorant of his appointment as
Checo had died some 10 years ago and his properties are now in the hands of his guardian ad litem of all the proceedings in the distribution and guardianship, and in
children cannot make the action one against his heirs in their personal capacity assessing the properties at low prices in connivance with the deceased. The rule is
because their right or title to said properties is not in issue, but the right, the exclusive that fraud is not presumed. As fraud in character, it must be proved by clear
right thereto of their deceased father. The defendants cannot, therefore, be said to be preponderance of evidence. There is absolutely no evidence in the case at a bar that
sued in their personal capacity. the plaintiffs have not been advised of the pendency of the administration
proceedings or of the appointment of the guardian ad litem, and the incidents
4. The testimonies of the plaintiffs as to the alleged statements of Gocheco to them are thereof, except the testimonies for the plaintiffs with regard to the supposed
well within the purpose and intent of the prohibition. statements of Paulino Gocheco, which have been discarded as incompetent. Neither
 is there any iota of evidence to support the supposed connivance between the
administrator and the guardian ad litem.
4. It is also suggested that the fact that deceased caused plaintiff Go Away to enter the
Philippines as a daughter of a merchant by the name of Lim Tui is a badge of the
fraud perpetrated by the deceased. Go Away was born of Chinese parents and could
not be allowed entry in the islands. In order to secure her entry, it was necessary for
her to assume another name and pretend to be the daughter of a Chinese resident
merchant. Go Away was already approaching 21 years of age at that time and should
have known that was the real reason; she must have been party to the fraud herself,
not its victim. In any case, the fraud could not have been used to hide the existence of
the properties left by his deceased father Go Checo, which were available in public
records.
5. Aside from the fact that fraud must be proved as fact by a clear preponderance of
evidence, because fraud a criminal charge, there is an added ground in the case at bar
requiring a high quantum of proof of the fraud. Public policy demands that judicial
proceedings may not lightly be considered; it is necessary that full faith and credit
should be given thereto in order that matters settled thereby may no longer be
subject to doubt or question. The evidence that was necessary to be introduced by
plaintiffs to support their cause of action was not, as the trial court has found it to be,
a mere preponderance of evidence; a clear preponderance is demanded as it must
overcome the presumption of good faith and regularity with which judicial
proceedings are clothed.

WON the plaintiffs are guilty of laches – YES

1. This defense of laches is an equitable defense. A suit on the ground of laches is

oftentimes called a "stale demand," and the bar had been held to require four
elements: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under who claims,
giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made an for which the complaint
seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complaint's rights, the complainant having
had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an
opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the
defendant that the complaint would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and
(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.
2. The existence of the second element is the most important issue in the case at bar. As
the administration proceedings ended in the year 1916, the guardianship proceedings
in 1931, and the action was brought only in the year 1948, more than 32 years from
the time of the distribution and 27 years from the time of the termination of
guardianship proceedings, had elapsed when this action was brought. In order to get
around this defense, plaintiffs-appellees resorted to the claim of fraud, which,
however, have been dismissed because not supported by sufficient evidence. The
important point to determine is whether plaintiffs-appellees may be said to have had
knowledge of the intestate proceedings and the guardianship proceedings within the
meaning of the second element.
3. It is a general rule that actual knowledge on the part of the plaintiff of the existence of
a cause of action against the defendant, is not necessary or essential, but that it is
enough if such knowledge may be imputed to him (plaintiff) by reason of the
existence of opportunity of his part to acquires such knowledge, or because of
circumstances of which he was cognizant.

RULING: Decision of the trial court is reversed