Icard v.

Masigan
GR# L-47442 | 71 PHIL 419| April 8, 1941 RULING & RATIO
Petitioner: In the matter of the estate of George M. Icard, deceased, - YES
JOSEPH K. ICARD 1. Section 383, par. 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is now Rule
Respondent: CLARO MASIGAN, as special administrator of the estate of 123, section 26, paragraph (c), of the Rules of Court, is designed to
George M. Icard; and EFFIE CARLAND ICARD, 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
DOCTRINE: The Dead Man’s Statue ceases to apply when the purpose of the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims against
the deceased.
oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear
2. Where, as in the instant case, the purpose of the oral testimony is to
written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased.
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
FACTS
certainly no reason for its application. Ratione cessante, cessat ipsa
1. The Antamok Central Mining Group of mining claims were owned by
lex. (The reason for the law itself ceasing, the law itself ceases.)
Fred M. Harden, George M. Icard (deceased), and Joseph K. Icard.
3. Also, it is clear that Joseph K. Icard had an interest in the mining claims
These mining claims were sold to Big Wedge Mining Company, the
aforementioned, as evidenced by the deed of sale executed in favor of
deed of sale was executed jointly by the owners, plaintiff was
the Big Wedge Mining Company and the compromise agreement
represented by his Atty-in-fact, George Icard.
approved by the court in the civil case of the CFI of Manila.
2. Due to a dispute with Big Wedge, a compromise agreement was
4. The amount of this interest being undetermined, Joseph K. Icard may,
approved by the court wherein the sum of P39,478.16 was to be paid
if he wishes to, properly claim one-half of P39,478.16, under the legal
to Joseph in full settlement of his and George’s full interest. The order
provision that "the interests of the co-owners shall be presumed to be
directed that said amount be divided between Joseph and the estate of
equal until the contrary is proved.” Instead, he claims P2,000 only, and
the deceased George in the manner and proportion to be determined
it is this reduced claim which he seeks to establish by his oral
by the probate.
testimony.
3. Joseph may claim half of the P39,478.16 if he wishes to, under the
legal provision that ‘the interests of the co-owners shall be presumed
DISPOSITION
equal until the contrary is proved.
Judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellants.
4. Instead, Joseph only claims P2000, and it is this reduced claim, which
he seeks to establish by his oral testimony.
5. 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.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE
1. W/N Joseph’s oral testimony may be admitted?