dead man_s statute (garcia vs robles)

8/9/2019 Dead Man_s Statute (Garcia vs Robles)

1/8

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 180843 April 17, 2013

APOLONIO GARCIA, in s!s"i""ion o# $is %&'&(s&% )o"$&r, Mo%&s"( G(r'i(, (n% CRISTINA

SALAMAT,Petitioners,

vs.

*OMINGA RO+LES *A. *E CAPARAS, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

*EL CASTILLO, J.:

nder the Dead Man!s Statute Rule, "if one part# to the alle$ed transaction is precluded fro%testif#in$ b# death, insanit#, or other %ental disabilities, the other part# is not entitled to the undue

advanta$e of $ivin$ his o&n uncontradicted and une'plained account of the transaction."( )hus, the

alle$ed ad%ission of the deceased Pedro Caparas *Pedro+ that he entered into a sharin$ of

leasehold ri$hts &ith the petitioners cannot be used as evidence a$ainst the herein respondent as

the latter &ould be unable to contradict or disprove the sa%e.

)his Petition for Revie& on Certiorari see-s to reverse and set aside the u$ust /(, 001

Decision/ of the Court of ppeals *C+ in C23.R. SP No. 4050/65 as &ell as its Dece%ber (/, 001

Resolution7den#in$ petitioners! Motion for Reconsideration.

-('"(l An"&'&%&n"s

8lora Ma-apu$a# *Ma-apu$a#+ is the o&ner of a .72hectare far% in 9aran$a# :u$a%, Malolos,

9ulacan *the land+ covered b# )ransfer Certificate of )itle No. *)C)+ R)2;74/ *)27(4usto dela Pa= *>usto+ and u$usto dela Pa= *u$usto+. On the other hand,

Eu$enio?s children @ Modesta 3arcia *3arcia+, Cristina Sala%at *Sala%at+ and Pedro @ succeeded

hi%.

9efore she passed a&a#, Ma-apu$a# appointed %anda as her attorne#2in2fact. fter Eu$enio died,

or in (415, %anda and Pedro entered into an a$ree%ent entitled "Aasunduan sa

9u&isan",1 follo&ed b# an pril (4, (414 $ricultural :easehold Contract,


2/8

On >ul# (0, (44;, the lando&ners %anda, >usto and u$usto, on the one hand, and Pedro?s sisters

3arcia and Sala%at on the other, entered into a "Aasunduan sa 9u&isan n$ :upa"4 &hereb# 3arcia

and Sala%at &ere ac-no&led$ed as Pedro?s co2lessees.

On October 5, (44;, herein petitioners 3arcia and Sala%at filed a Co%plaint(0 for nullification of

leasehold and restoration of ri$hts as a$ricultural lessees a$ainst Pedro?s heirs, represented b# his

survivin$ spouse and herein respondent Do%in$a. 9efore the office of the Provincial $rarian

Refor% dBudicator *PRD+ of 9ulacan, the case &as doc-eted as Depart%ent of $rarian Refor%

dBudication 9oard *DR9+ Case No. R20/202/7024;.

In their Co%plaint, 3arcia and Sala%at clai%ed that &hen their father Eu$enio died, the# entered

into an a$ree%ent &ith their brother Pedro that the# &ould alternatel# far% the land on a "per2

season basis"6 that the lando&ner Ma-apu$a# -ne& of this a$ree%ent6 that &hen Ma-apu$a#

passed a&a#, Pedro rene$ed on their a$ree%ent and cultivated the land all b# hi%self, deliberatel#

e'cludin$ the% and %isrepresentin$ to %anda that he is Eu$enio?s sole heir6 that as a result,

%anda &as deceived into installin$ hi% as sole a$ricultural lessee in their (414 $ricultural

:easehold Contract6 that &hen %anda learned of Pedro?s %isrepresentations, she e'ecuted on

>ul# (0, (44; an ffidavit(( statin$ a%on$ others that Pedro assured her that he &ould not deprive

3arcia and Sala%at of their "cultivator# ri$hts"6 that in order to correct %atters, %anda, >usto and

u$usto e'ecuted in their favor the (44; "Aasunduan sa 9u&isan n$ :upa", reco$ni=in$ the% as

Pedro?s co2lessees6 that &hen Pedro passed a&a#, Do%in$a too- over the land and, despite

de%ands, continued to deprive the% of their ri$hts as co2lessees6 that efforts to settle their

controvers# proved futile, pro%ptin$ the 9aran$a# $rarian Refor% Co%%ittee to issue the proper

certification authori=in$ the filin$ of a case6 and that the# suffered da%a$es as a conseuence.

Petitioners pra#ed that the (414 $ricultural :easehold Contract bet&een Pedro and %anda be

nullified6 that the# be reco$ni=ed as co2lessees and allo&ed to cultivate the land on an alternate

basis as ori$inall# a$reed6 and that the# be a&arded P70,000.00 attorne#?s fees and costs of

liti$ation.

In her ns&er ,(

herein respondent Do%in$a clai%ed that &hen her father2in2la& Eu$enio died, onl#her husband Pedro succeeded and cultivated the land, and that petitioners never assisted hi% in

far%in$ the land6 that Pedro is the sole a$ricultural lessee of the land6 that %anda?s >ul# (0, (44;

ffidavit and "Aasunduan sa 9u&isan n$ :upa" of even date bet&een her and the petitioners are

self2servin$ and violate the e'istin$ (414 $ricultural :easehold Contract6 that under Section /< (/ of

Republic ct No. /


3/8

FERE8ORE, pre%ises considered, Bud$%ent is hereb# rendered in favor of the defendant and

a$ainst the plaintiffs and Order is hereb# issued

(. ORDERIN3 the dis%issal of the case6

. DEC:RIN3 defendant Do%in$a Robles Vda. de Caparas as la&ful successor2tenant6

/. ORDERIN3 plaintiffs to %aintain defendant in her peaceful possession and cultivation of

the subBect landholdin$6

5. ORDERIN3 the MRO of Malolos, 9ulacan to e'ecute a ne& leasehold contract bet&een

the lando&ner and defendant Do%in$a Robles Vda. de Caparas6

7. No pronounce%ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.(1

)he PRD held that %anda?s act of e'ecutin$ the >ul# (0, (44; ffidavit and "Aasunduan sa9u&isan n$ :upa" a%ounted to dispossession of Pedro?s landholdin$ and ri$hts &ithout cause6 that

%anda?s (44; disclai%er, after havin$ installed Pedro as tenant in (414, &as belated and

unBustified6 that petitioners have not sho&n b# evidence that the# actuall# cultivated the land, or that

the# paid rentals to the lando&ners6 that petitioners? cause of action has prescribed in accordance

&ith Section /< of R /ul# (0, (44; "Aasunduan sa 9u&isan n$ :upa" is null and void for bein$ issued a$ainst Pedro?s

e'istin$ (414 $ricultural :easehold Contract, &hich has not been cancelled b# co%petent authorit#.

DR9 Case No. 0/20/2(0/01244

It appears that so%eti%e after the e'ecution of the >ul# (0, (44; "Aasunduan sa 9u&isan n$ :upa"

and durin$ the pendenc# of DR9 Case No. R20/202/7024;, petitioners entered the land and

be$an tillin$ the sa%e. 8or this reason, Do%in$a filed DR9 Case No. 0/20/2(0/01244, for

%aintenance of peaceful possession &ith inBunctive relief, a$ainst the lando&ners and petitioners.

On petitioners? %otion, the case &as dis%issed.(<

Rulin$ of the DR9

Petitioners appealed the Ma# 5, (44< PRD Decision in DR9 Case No. R20/202/7024; to the

DR9, &here the case &as doc-eted as DR9 Case No. 41(4 *DCN 41+. Do%in$a li-e&ise

appealed the dis%issal of DR9 Case No. 0/20/2(0/01244, &hich appeal &as doc-eted as

DR9 Case No. (((77 *DCN (((77+. On %otion, both appeals &ere consolidated.

On >une (7, 007, the DR9 issued its Decision,0 the dispositive portion of &hich reads, as

follo&s

FERE8ORE, pre%ises considered, a ne& Bud$%ent is hereb# rendered

(. DEC:RIN3 Do%in$a Robles Vda. de Caparas as the la&ful successor2tenant of Pedro

Caparas over the subBect landholdin$6

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt20


4/8

. ORDERIN3 the plaintiffs in DCN 41 and the respondents in DCN (((77 or an# person

actin$ in their behalves GsicH, to %aintain Do%in$a Robles Vda. de Caparas in peaceful

possession and cultivation of the subBect landholdin$6

/. ORDERIN3 the MRO of Malolos, 9ulacan, to e'ecute a ne& leasehold contract bet&een

the lando&ner and Do%in$a Robles Vda. de Caparas6 and

5. ORDERIN3 for the dis%issal of DCN (((77 for bein$ %oot and acade%ic.

SO ORDERED.(

In upholdin$ the PRD Decision, the DR9 held that contrar# to petitioners? clai%, there &as no

alternate far%in$ a$ree%ent bet&een the parties, and thus petitioners %a# not clai% that the# &ere

co2lessees6 that Pedro %erel# shared his harvest &ith petitioners as an act of $enerosit#, and

Do%in$a?s act of stoppin$ this practice after succeedin$ Pedro pro%pted petitioners to file DR9

Case No. R20/202/7024; and clai% the status of co2lessees6 that %anda?s ffidavit and the (44;

"Aasunduan sa 9u&isan n$ :upa" bet&een the lando&ners and petitioners cannot defeat Pedro?s

(414 $ricultural :easehold Contract and his ri$hts as the sole tenant over the land6 that for sleepin$on their ri$hts, petitioners are no& barred b# laches fro% clai%in$ that the# are co2lessees6 and that

petitioners? (44; "Aasunduan sa 9u&isan n$ :upa" is null and void for bein$ contrar# to la&, %orals,

public polic#, and Pedro?s (414 $ricultural :easehold Contract, &hich &as subsistin$ and &hich has

not been cancelled b# co%petent authorit#.

Rlin o# "$& Cor" o# App&(ls

Petitioners filed before the C a Petition for Certiorari, &hich &as doc-eted as C23.R. SP No.

4050/, see-in$ to set aside the DR9 Decision. )he sole basis of their Petition rests on the

ar$u%ent that as a result of a Ma# 4, 007 Order issued b# the Re$ional )echnical Director *Re$ion

III+ of the Depart%ent of Environ%ent and Natural Resources, the surve# returns and plans coverin$

)C) R)2;74/ have been cancelled, &hich thus rendered the >une (7, 007 DR9 Decision nulland void and a proper subBect of certiorari.

On u$ust /(, 001, the C issued the assailed Decision &hich decreed as follo&s

IN :I3F) O8 :: )FE 8ORE3OIN3, the instant petition is DENIED. )he assailed decision is

88IRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

)he C held that the issue raised b# petitioners @ the cancellation of the surve# returns and plans

coverin$ )C) R)2;74/ @ &as not part of their causes of action in the PRD or DR9, and this

ne& issue chan$ed the theor# of their case a$ainst Do%in$a, &hich is not allo&ed. )he C added

that it could not decide the case on the basis of a uestion &hich &as not placed in issue durin$ the

proceedin$s belo&.

)he C held further that even $rantin$ that the issues are resolved on the %erits, the petition &ould

fail6 the cancellation of the surve# returns and plans coverin$ )C) R)2;74/ reverts the propert# to

its ori$inal classification as a$ricultural land &hich thus vindicates the leasehold a$ree%ents of the

parties. nd spea-in$ of leasehold a$ree%ents, the C held that petitioners %a# not be considered

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt22


5/8

as Pedro?s co2lessees, for lac- of proof that the# actuall# tilled the land and &ith petitioners? o&n

ad%ission in their pleadin$s that the# %erel# received a share fro% Pedro?s harvests6 that the

ori$inal (415 and (414 leasehold a$ree%ents bet&een Ma-apu$a#, %anda and Pedro

cate$oricall# sho& that Pedro is the sole desi$nated a$ricultural lessee6 and that &ithout proper le$al

ter%ination of Pedro?s lease in accordance &ith R /DIC)OR, DR9 CEN)R:

O88ICE, ND )FE FONOR9:E COR) O8 PPE:S, SPEA O8 NO FOME:O)

FVIN3 9EEN RDED 9J )FE DEPR)MEN) O8 3RRIN RE8ORM )O PRIV)E

RESPONDEN).

/. C): PFJSIC: CFN3E IN )FE SE O8 )FE :ND 8ROM 3RIC:)R: )O

"RESIDEN)I:" MJ OCCR 8)ER )RI:, 9) DRIN3 )FE PPE:, FICF )FE

FON. COR) O8 PPE:S MJ CONSIDER.

5. "CONVERSION" *FICF REIRES PRIOR PPROV: 9J )FE DR+ FVIN3

9ECOME "8I) CCOMP:I", SEC)ION 0 O8 )FE RE: ES))E )L CODE ND

R)IC:E (1 O8 )FE :OC: 3OVERNMEN) CODE O8 (44( 88IRM )FE

)RS)OR)FINESS O8 )FE )L DEC:R)ION )F) IS, )FE PREVIOS

8RMFO:D FS 9EEN CONVER)ED IN)O "RESIDEN)I:" :ND, ND CON8IRMED 9J

)FE CI)J ONIN3 DIREC)OR.

7. IN NO) FVIN3 CONSIDERED )FE )L DEC:R)ION ND )FE ONIN3

CER)I8IC)ION ' ' ', )FE FON. COR) O8 PPE:S COMMI))ED VERJ

8NDMEN): ERROR.7

Petitioners? r$u%ents

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt25


6/8

In their Petition and Repl#,; petitioners this ti%e ar$ue that in buildin$ houses upon the land for

herself and her children &ithout a ho%elot a&ard fro% the Depart%ent of $rarian Refor%, Do%in$a

converted the sa%e to residential use6 and b# this act of conversion, Do%in$a violated her o&n

securit# of tenure and the land &as re%oved fro% covera$e of the land refor% la&s. )he# add that

the Malolos =onin$ ordinance and the ta' declaration coverin$ the land effectivel# converted the

propert# into residential land.

Petitioners Bustif# their chan$e of theor#, the addition of ne& issues, and the raisin$ of factual issues,

statin$ that the resolution of these issues are necessar# in order to arrive at a Bust decision and

resolution of the case in its totalit#. )he# add that the ne& issues &ere raised as a necessar#

conseuence of supervenin$ events &hich too- place after the Decisions of the PRD and DR9

&ere issued.

Respondent?s r$u%ents

In her Co%%ent,1 Do%in$a ar$ues that the Petition raises uestions of fact &hich are not the proper

subBect of a Petition under Rule 57 of the Rules. She adds that petitioners raised ane& issues &hich

further chan$ed the theor# of their case, and &hich issues %a# not be raised for the first ti%e at thissta$e of the proceedin$s.

Or Rlin

)he Petition is denied.

DR9 Case No. R20/202/7024;, &hich &as filed in (44; or lon$ after Pedro?s death in (4ul# (0, (44; ffidavit that Pedro falsel#

represented to Ma-apu$a# and to her that he is the actual cultivator of the land, and that &hen she

confronted hi% about this and the alle$ed alternate far%in$ sche%e bet&een hi% and petitioners,

Pedro alle$edl# told her that "he and his t&o sisters had an understandin$ about it and he did not

have the intention of deprivin$ the% of their cultivator# ri$hts."


7/8

If petitioners earnestl# believed that the# had a ri$ht, under their supposed %utual a$ree%ent &ith

Pedro, to cultivate the land under an alternate far%in$ sche%e, then the# should have confronted

Pedro or sou$ht an audience &ith %anda to discuss the possibilit# of their institution as co2lessees

of the land6 and the# should have done so soon after the passin$ a&a# of their father Eu$enio.

Fo&ever, it &as onl# in (44;, or (1 #ears after Pedro &as installed as tenant in (414 and lon$ after

his death in (4


8/8

verbal ad%ission, and &hich a$ree%ent &as entered into &ithout obtainin$ Do%in$a?s consent,

constitutes an undue infrin$e%ent of Do%in$a?s ri$hts as Pedro?s successor2in2interest under

Section 4, and operates to deprive her of such ri$hts and dispossess her of the leasehold a$ainst

her &ill. nder Section 1/ of R /ustice

E CONCR
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_180843_2013.html#fnt34

dead man_s statute (garcia vs robles)

Documents