GR L 1769; (May, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1769 ; May 13, 1949
Intestate Estate of the Deceased Fulgencio Dairo. PURITA PANAGUITON, administratrix-appellant, vs. FLORENTINO PATUBO, claimant-appellee.
FACTS
Florentino Patubo filed a claim in the intestate proceedings of Fulgencio Dairo for P1,000, representing the amount of three promissory notes executed by Dairo during his lifetime. The administratrix, Purita Panaguiton, filed an answer under oath, stating she had no knowledge of the claims and denying them generally, but she did not specifically deny under oath the authenticity and due execution of the promissory notes. During the hearing, the trial court allowed Patubo to testify over the administratrix’s objection based on the dead man’s statute (Rule 123, Article 26(c)). The court ordered payment of the claim. The administratrix appealed, arguing the court erred in admitting the claimant’s testimony and in ordering payment despite the moratorium on pre-war debts.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the claimant’s testimony to prove the promissory notes.
2. Whether the trial court erred in ordering payment despite the moratorium.
RULING
1. No, any error in admitting the testimony was harmless. Under the Rules of Court (Rule 15, Section 8, formerly Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure), when an action or defense is founded on a written instrument copied or attached to the pleading, its authenticity and due execution are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party. Here, the administratrix’s general denial under oath did not constitute a specific denial of the promissory notes’ authenticity and due execution. Therefore, these facts were deemed admitted, making the claimant’s testimony to prove them unnecessary.
2. No, the moratorium did not apply. The estate failed to prove it had a claim against the United States Philippine War Damage Commission, which was a requirement for invoking the moratorium under Republic Act No. 342 (effective July 26, 1948). Thus, the estate could not avail of the moratorium defense.
The appealed order was affirmed.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Perfecto concurred, explicitly stating that the trial court did not err in allowing the claimant to testify, as the disqualification under the dead man’s statute is untenable for being unreasonable and violative of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.
AI Generated by Armztrong.