Ramon Joaquin Vs Antonio C Navarro 93 Phil 257 Digest

RAMON JOAQUIN, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO, respondent.
1953-05-29 |
G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
DECISION III. Civil Personality. B. Commencement and termination of Personality. 1. Natural

Persons NCC 43
Facts:
On February 6, 1945, while the battle against the Japanese in Manila was raging, the family of Joaquin
Navarro, Sr. and Angela Joaquin, sought refuge in the ground floor of the building known as the German
Club. However, after some time they all have died. At the time of the massacre, Joaquin Navarro, Sr. was
aged 70; his wife Angela Joaquin was about 67 years old; Joaquin Navarro, Jr. about 30.
Many years later, three proceedings were instituted for the summary settlement of the estates of Joaquin
Navarro, Sr., his wife Angela Joaquin de Navarro, Joaquin Navarro, Jr., deceased. All of them having been
heard jointly, Judge Rafael Amparo handed down a single decision which was appealed to the Court of
Appeals, whose decision, modifying that of the Court of First Instance. Court of Appeals assumes that
Joaquin Navarro, Jr. aged 30, must be deemed to have survived his mother, Angela Joaquin, who was
admittedly above 60 years of age based on Rule 123 of the Rules of Court. But this decision was elevated
to the Supreme Court for review.
The importance of the question whether Angela Joaquin de Navarro died before Joaquin Navarro, Jr., or
vice versa, lies in the fact that it radically affects the right of succession of Ramon Joaquin, the present
petitioner who was an acknowledged natural child of Angela Joaquin and adopted child of the deceased
spouses, and of Antonio C. Navarro, respondent, son of Joaquin Navarro, Sr. by first marriage.
Issues:
Whether or not the statutory presumption can be invoked in this case
Whether or not Angela Joaquin died before her son Joaquin Navarro Jr.
Ruling:
No. the Court of Appeals opined that, "as between the mother Angela Joaquin and the son Joaquin
Navarro, Jr., the evidence of survivorship is uncertain and insufficient and the statutory presumption must
be applied.”
And that citing In re Wallace's Estate, it further contend that, “When, by circumstantial evidence alone, a
party seeks to prove a survivorship contrary to the statutory presumption, the circumstances by which it
is sought to prove the survivorship must be such as are competent and sufficient when tested by the
general rules of evidence in civil cases. The inference of survivorship cannot rest upon mere surmise,
speculation, or conjecture. As was said in Grand Lodge vs. Miller, supra, 'if the matter is left to probability,
then the statute settles the presumption.'"
This court disagrees. It is our opinion that the preceding testimony contains facts quite adequate to solve
the problem of survivorship between Angela Joaquin and Joaquin Navarro, Jr. and keep the statutory
presumption out of the case. Neither the 69(ii) of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court and article 43 of the New
Civil Code is applicable because as their language plainly implies, they are intended as a substitute for
facts, and so are not to be available when there are facts. Since there are facts, known or knowable, from
which a rational conclusion can be made, the rule of preponderance of evidence controls instead of
presumption as it was in this case.
Moreover, the prohibition against intermeddling with decisions on questions of evidence refers to
decisions supported by substantial evidence. By substantial evidence is meant real evidence or at least
evidence about which reasonable men may disagree. Findings grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises, or conjectures come within the exception to the general rule.
No. The facts were established as to Mr. Lopez' statement that the collapse of the clubhouse occurred
about 40 minutes after Joaquin Navarro the son was shot in the head and dropped dead, and that it was
the collapse of the German Club that killed Mrs. Angela Navarro.
The Court of Appeals said the interval between Joaquin Navarro's death and the breaking down of the
edifice was "minutes". Even so, it was much longer than five seconds, long enough to warrant the
inference that Mrs. Angela Joaquin was still alive when her son expired.
The presumption that Angela Joaquin de Navarro died before her son is based purely on surmises,
speculations, or conjectures without any sure foundation in the evidence. The opposite theory - that the
mother outlived her son - is deduced from established facts which, weighed by common experience,
engender the inference as a very strong probability. Gauged by the doctrine of preponderance of evidence
by which civil cases are decided, this inference ought to prevail.
We are constrained to reverse the decision under review, and hold that the distribution of the decedents'
estates should be made in accordance with the decision of the trial court. This result precludes the
necessity of passing upon the question of "reserva troncal" which was put forward on the hypothetical
theory that Mrs. Joaquin Navarro's death preceded that of her son. Without costs.

Ramon Joaquin Vs Antonio C Navarro 93 Phil 257 Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramon Joaquin Vs Antonio C Navarro 93 Phil 257 Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramon Joaquin Vs Antonio C Navarro 93 Phil 257 Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAMON JOAQUIN, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO, respondent.

DECISION III. Civil Personality. B. Commencement and termination of Personality. 1. Natural

Whether or not the statutory presumption can be invoked in this case

You might also like