G.R. No. L-47261; April 18, 1941
GUILLERMO AMANTE Y OTROS, demandantes-apelantes, vs. ROSARIO MANZANERO, en su concepto de administradora del intestado del finado Leopoldo Laurel, demandada-apelada.

FACTS

Leopoldo Laurel died intestate on August 22, 1933. Guillermo Amante, alleging himself to be a creditor, initiated intestate proceedings on November 10, 1933, in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The court declared Laurel was survived by his widow, Rosario Manzanero, and his mother, Luisa Marili, and left unpaid debts to: Guillermo Amante (P850), Pedro Marili (P870), Santiago Jazmin (P300), Cosme Reyes (P200), and Juana Mabilañgan (P130). The widow, Manzanero, was appointed administratrix. Commissioners of appraisal and claims were appointed. The commissioners disagreed on the claims of Amante, Marili, Jazmin, and Reyes: one held the claims could not be recognized as none were in writing, while the other believed they were proven by the claimants’ declarations. Due to this disagreement, the four claimants jointly appealed to the Court of First Instance via Civil Case No. 3157. The defendant administratrix filed a demurrer, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as there was no decision to appeal from and suggesting they should have requested a third commissioner. The defendant failed to set a hearing for the demurrer. The plaintiffs moved to declare her in default, which the court granted on August 22, 1935. On August 26, 1935, the court declared the claimants’ demands valid and ordered the administratrix to pay. On the same day, the defendant moved for reconsideration of the default order and the judgment. The court granted reconsideration, set aside its decisions, and allowed both parties to present evidence. The defendant filed an answer with special defenses, including that the plaintiffs improperly joined their distinct claims and that the debts were not owed. After trial, the court, while noting the misjoinder of parties was not raised in the demurrer and was thus waived, dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs proved their credits against the deceased through documents. The plaintiffs appealed, assigning errors in the reconsideration of the first decision, the dismissal without allowing them to finish presenting evidence, the inadmissibility of oral testimony to prove the credits, and the denial of a new trial.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in reconsidering its initial decision of August 26, 1935.
2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the case without allowing the plaintiffs to finish presenting evidence.
3. Whether the trial court erred in declaring oral testimony inadmissible to establish the credits against the deceased.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order of dismissal.
1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering its initial decision. The motion for reconsideration was based on excusable neglect under Section 145 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), and the court acted to place the parties in their original state to allow a full opportunity to prove their allegations without technical disadvantages. The reconsideration caused no prejudice to the plaintiffs.
2. & 3. The second and third assigned errors are unfounded. The plaintiffs admitted they had no other evidence besides their own testimonies. Under Article 1280 of the Civil Code, contracts for more than 1,500 pesetas must be in writing to be enforceable. The claims of Amante, Marili, and Jazmin exceeded this amount and were not in writing. Furthermore, under Section 383 of Act No. 190 (the Dead Man’s Statute), the plaintiffs were not permitted to testify regarding a matter of fact that occurred before the death of the debtor, as death had closed his lips. Therefore, the alleged credits, not being consigned in any document, could not be proven by the claimants’ own declarations.
4. The fourth error, being a consequence of the others, is likewise unfounded.
The appealed order was confirmed, with costs against the appellants.