Facts:

For services rendered in connection with the development and location of certain mining claims, Joseph K. Icard filed a claim of P2,000 against the estate of his deceased father George M. Icard. The claim having been allowed by the commissioner on claims, the administrator appealed to the Court of First Instance, where it was likewise allowed. The administrator’s appeal to this Court rests mainly on the theory that the probate court erred in allowing the claimant to testify to the services rendered by him in favor of his father, because the action being one against the administrator of a deceased person, plaintiff cannot be allowed to testify as to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased person

Issue: Whether or Not Joseph Icard can be allowed to testify as to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased person

Ruling: No, Rule 123, section 26, paragraph (c), of the Rules of Court, is designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the party defendant, in order to remove from the surviving party the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims against the deceased. Where, as in the instant case, the purpose of the oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased, the law has certainly no reason for its application. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s