Icard v. Masigan 1. Section 383, par.
7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is now
GR# L-47442 | 71 PHIL 419| April 8, 1941 Rule 123, section 26, paragraph (c), of the Rules of Court, is
Petitioner: In the matter of the estate of George M. Icard, deceased, designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has closed
JOSEPH K. ICARD the lips of the party defendant, in order to remove from the surviving
Respondent: CLARO MASIGAN, as special administrator of the estate party, the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious
of George M. Icard; and EFFIE CARLAND ICARD, claims against the deceased.
2. Where, as in the instant case, the purpose of the oral testimony is to
DOCTRINE: The Dead Man’s Statue ceases to apply when the purpose of prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear written
evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased, the law
the oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by
has certainly no reason for its application. Ratione cessante, cessat
clear written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased.
ipsa lex. (The reason for the law itself ceasing, the law itself ceases.)
3. Also, it is clear that Joseph K. Icard had an interest in the mining
FACTS
claims aforementioned, as evidenced by the deed of sale executed
1. The Antamok Central Mining Group of mining claims were owned by
in favor of the Big Wedge Mining Company and the compromise
Fred M. Harden, George M. Icard (deceased), and Joseph K. Icard.
agreement approved by the court in the civil case of the CFI of
These mining claims were sold to Big Wedge Mining Company, the
Manila.
deed of sale was executed jointly by the owners, plaintiff was
4. The amount of this interest being undetermined, Joseph K. Icard
represented by his Atty-in-fact, George Icard.
may, if he wishes to, properly claim one-half of P39,478.16, under
2. Due to a dispute with Big Wedge, a compromise agreement was
the legal provision that "the interests of the co-owners shall be
approved by the court wherein the sum of P39,478.16 was to be paid
presumed to be equal until the contrary is proved.” Instead, he
to Joseph in full settlement of his and George’s full interest. The
claims P2,000 only, and it is this reduced claim which he seeks to
order directed that said amount be divided between Joseph and the
establish by his oral testimony.
estate of the deceased George in the manner and proportion to be
determined by the probate.
DISPOSITION
3. Joseph may claim half of the P39,478.16 if he wishes to, under the
Judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellants.
legal provision that ‘the interests of the co-owners shall be presumed
equal until the contrary is proved.
4. Instead, Joseph only claims P2000, and it is this reduced claim,
which he seeks to establish by his oral testimony.
5. The administrator's appeal to this Court rests mainly on the theory
that the probate court erred in allowing the claimant to testify to the
services rendered by him in favor of his father, because the action
being one against the administrator of a deceased person, plaintiff
cannot be allowed to testify as to any matter of fact which occurred
before the death of such deceased person.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
1. W/N Joseph’s oral testimony may be admitted?
RULING & RATIO
- YES
