G.R. No. 27498, September 20, 1927
IN RE: INTESTATE ESTATE OF MARCELINO TONGCO, represented by JOSEFA TONGCO, administratrix, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANASTACIA VIANZON, defendant-appellee.

DOCTRINE: The statutory prohibition under Section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the “Dead Man’s Statute”), which disqualifies a party from testifying against an executor or administrator regarding matters occurring before the decedent’s death, does not apply when the action is brought *by* the estate to enforce a claim *against* the surviving party, or in special proceedings like a cadastral case where there are no ordinary plaintiffs and defendants. Furthermore, a waiver of the disqualification occurs when the adverse party cross-examines the interested witness on the prohibited matters.

FACTS

1. Marcelino Tongco and Anastacia Vianzon were married in 1894. Marcelino died in 1925, and his niece, Josefa Tongco, was appointed administratrix of his estate.
2. Before his death, Marcelino filed claims in a cadastral case for several lots, requesting titles in the name of the conjugal partnership. Decrees and Torrens titles for these lots were issued in the name of the conjugal partnership after his death.
3. The widow, Anastacia Vianzon, filed a motion in the cadastral case to revise the decrees, claiming the lots were her exclusive property. The trial court (Judge Rovira) granted her motion, annulled the decrees, and ordered new titles issued in her name alone.
4. Subsequently, the administratrix of Marcelino’s estate filed a separate civil action against Anastacia for the recovery of the same properties and damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, declaring the properties belonged exclusively to Anastacia.
5. The administratrix appealed both judgments. The two cases were consolidated on appeal.
6. A key issue was the admissibility of Anastacia’s testimony. The administratrix argued it should be excluded under the “Dead Man’s Statute” (Sec. 383, Code of Civil Procedure), as she was testifying against the estate regarding events before her husband’s death.
7. The trial court admitted her testimony and found it, along with other evidence, decisively proved her exclusive ownership, overcoming the presumption under Article 1407 of the Civil Code that property acquired during marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership.

ISSUE

1. Was the testimony of the surviving spouse, Anastacia Vianzon, incompetent and inadmissible under Section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the “Dead Man’s Statute”) in these proceedings?
2. Did the trial court err in finding that the properties in dispute belonged exclusively to the widow, Anastacia Vianzon?

RULING

1. NO, the testimony of the widow was competent and admissible.
The Supreme Court held that Section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not disqualify Anastacia Vianzon from testifying. The law prohibits testimony by a party or interested person *against* an executor/administrator *upon a claim or demand against the estate*. Here, the actions were not *against* the estate:
* The civil case was an action *by* the administratrix (the estate) to enforce a demand *against* the widow.
* The cadastral proceeding was a special proceeding in rem, with no plaintiff or defendant in the ordinary sense.
Furthermore, the Court found that any potential disqualification was waived when counsel for the administratrix cross-examined Anastacia on the very matters he now claimed were prohibited.

2. NO, the trial court did not err in its factual findings.
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings. While Article 1407 of the Civil Code presumes property acquired during marriage to be conjugal, this presumption is rebuttable. The Court found that the widow’s testimony, which was properly admitted, along with other evidence, was decisive and conclusive in proving that the disputed properties were her exclusive paraphernal property. The trial court’s denial of the motion for a new trial was also upheld, as it would not have changed the outcome.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs are taxed against the appellant, Josefa Tongco, as administratrix of the estate of Marcelino Tongco.