[Digest] Icard v. Masigan

Icard v. Masigan G.R. No. L-47442 April 8, 1941 Moran, J. petitioners In the matter of the estate of George M. Icard, deceased, JOSEPH K. ICARD respondents CLARO MASIGAN, as special administrator of the estate of George M. Icard; and EFFIE CARLAND ICARD testimony his claim claim of P2,000 P2,000 as opposed to the summary  Joseph seeks to prove by oral testimony compromise agreement of P39,478.16 where he is entitled to half. Respondents oppose to this stating that since the action is against a deceased person, Joseph cannot be allowed to testify as to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased person. Court allowed Joseph’s oral testimony because the because  the law is designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death death has closed the lips of the party defendant, in order to remove from the surviving party the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims against the deceased.  Where the purpose of the oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased, the law has certainly no reason for its application.

facts of the case The Antamok Central Mining Group of mining claims were owned by Fred M. Harden, George M. Icard (deceased), and Joseph K. Icard (plaintiff). ( plaintiff). These mining claims were sold to Big Wedge Mining Company, the deed of sale was executed jointly by the owners, plaintiff was represented by his atty. in fact, George Icard. Due to a dispute with Big Wedge, a compromise agreement was approved by the court wherein the sum of P39,478.16 was to be paid to Joseph in full settlement of his and George’s full interest. The order directed that said amount be divided between Joseph J oseph and the estate of the deceased George in the manner and proportion to be determined by the probate.  Joseph may claim claim half of the P39,478.16 P39,478.16 if he wishes wishes to, under the legal legal provision provision that ‘the ‘the interests of the co-owners co-owners shall be presumed equal until the contrary is proved.’ (CC393) Instead,  Joseph only claims P2000, and it is this reduced claim, which he seeks to establish by his oral testimony. 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 issue WON Joseph’s oral testimony may testimony may be admitted? YES. ratio Section 383, par. 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, Procedure, which is now Rule 123, section 26, paragraph paragraph (c), of the Rules of Court, is designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the party defendant, in order to remove from the surviving party the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims against the deceased. Where, as in the instant case, the purpose of the oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased, the law has certainly no reason for its application. Ratione cessante, cessat ipsa lex (The reason for a law ceasing, the law itself ceases.)

1