GR 41253; (November, 1934) (Digest)
March 10, 2026GR 37054; (December, 1932) (Digest)
March 10, 2026G.R. No. 37207, December 6, 1932
JULIAN T. AGUNA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANTONIO LARENA, judicial administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Mariano Larena, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Julian T. Aguna filed a claim against the estate of Mariano Larena for P29,600. The first cause of action sought P9,600 as compensation for services rendered as agent managing Larena’s Manila houses from 1922 to 1930. The second cause of action sought P20,000 as reimbursement for the construction cost of a building erected on Larena’s land, which Aguna claimed he funded with the understanding that Larena would bequeath it to him. Aguna occupied one of Larena’s houses rent-free during his service. The defendant estate contested the claims.
ISSUE
1. Whether Aguna is entitled to monetary compensation for his services beyond the gratuitous use of the house.
2. Whether Aguna is entitled to recover the construction cost of the building, claiming ownership of the funds used.
RULING
1. No, as to the first cause of action. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the gratuitous occupation of the house constituted sufficient compensation for Aguna’s services. The Court found it improbable that Aguna would render services for eight years without demanding payment if there was an agreement for additional compensation.
2. No, as to the second cause of action. The Court rejected Aguna’s claim. His testimony regarding the ownership of the construction funds and the alleged agreement with Larena was inadmissible under *section 383, paragraph 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure* (the Dead Man’s Statute), which bars a party from testifying on matters occurring before the death of the decedent in a claim against the estate. Even assuming admissibility, the testimony was not credible. Documentary evidence, particularly Exhibit 40 (Aguna’s account book stating “Dinero Tomado a Don Mariano Larena para la nueva casa” and entries showing withdrawals by Larena and corresponding deposits to Aguna), conclusively proved that the construction money came from Larena, not Aguna. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.