GR L 2090; (September, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2090; September 27, 1948
TOMAS FACTURAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. RAYMUNDA SABANAL, HEREDEROS DE FRANCISCO SEVILLA, BENEDICTO LIBCON, BERNABELA FACTURAN and EUGENIO SEVILLA, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a dispute over the nature of a property—whether it is conjugal or the exclusive property of the deceased Alfonso Facturan. The Court of First Instance struck out the corroborative testimonies of witnesses for the appellant (Raymunda Sabanal, the widow) that tended to prove the property was acquired during the marriage. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, considered the testimonies, and held the property to be conjugal. Petitioners (heirs of Alfonso Facturan) sought certiorari, arguing the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by considering testimonies that had been stricken off the record and that no exception was taken from the trial court’s order of exclusion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the corroborative testimonies of witnesses that were stricken out by the trial court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found that exceptions were in fact taken from the trial court’s orders, as shown by the stenographic notes. Even disregarding the corroborative testimonies, the widow’s own uncorroborated testimony that the property was acquired during marriage is sufficient, as the property is presumed conjugal under the law, and this presumption was not sufficiently destroyed. Furthermore, the trial court erred in applying the statute of frauds to exclude the testimonies. The statute of frauds applies only to executory contracts and actions for violation or performance of a contract, not to executed contracts (like a consummated sale) or to an action to determine the nature of property. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly admitted and considered the oral evidence on the sale. The separate concurring opinion emphasized the limited appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review only errors of law, not findings of fact. A dissenting opinion argued the statute of frauds should apply strictly to prevent fraud in such cases.
AI Generated by Armztrong.