Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    E. Tongco v. Vianzon

    Uploaded by

    johnmiggy
    1. The case involved a dispute over property between the estate of the deceased Marcelino Tongco and his widow Anastacia Vianzon. 2. Shortly before Marcelino's death, land titles for certain properties were issued under the name of the conjugal partnership of Marcelino and Anastacia. 3. The administratrix of Marcelino's estate filed suit against Anastacia to recover property, arguing it belonged to Marcelino's estate. However, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the property belonged exclusively to the widow Anastacia.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    E. Tongco v. Vianzon

    Uploaded by

    johnmiggy
    71 views2 pages
    1. The case involved a dispute over property between the estate of the deceased Marcelino Tongco and his widow Anastacia Vianzon. 2. Shortly before Marcelino's death, land titles for certain properties were issued under the name of the conjugal partnership of Marcelino and Anastacia. 3. The administratrix of Marcelino's estate filed suit against Anastacia to recover property, arguing it belonged to Marcelino's estate. However, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the property belonged exclusively to the widow Anastacia.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved a dispute over property between the estate of the deceased Marcelino Tongco and his widow Anastacia Vianzon. 2. Shortly before Marcelino's death, land titles for certain properties were issued under the name of the conjugal partnership of Marcelino and Anastacia. 3. The administratrix of Marcelino's estate filed suit against Anastacia to recover property, arguing it belonged to Marcelino's estate. However, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the property belonged exclusively to the widow Anastacia.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    E. Tongco v. Vianzon

    Uploaded by

    johnmiggy
    1. The case involved a dispute over property between the estate of the deceased Marcelino Tongco and his widow Anastacia Vianzon. 2. Shortly before Marcelino's death, land titles for certain properties were issued under the name of the conjugal partnership of Marcelino and Anastacia. 3. The administratrix of Marcelino's estate filed suit against Anastacia to recover property, arguing it belonged to Marcelino's estate. However, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the property belonged exclusively to the widow Anastacia.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    27498 September 20, 1927 Inestate estate of Marcelino Tongco, represented by JOSEFA TONGCO, administratrix, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANASTACIA VIANZON, defendant-appellee. FACTS: The fundamental question which is being litigated in this case and its companion case, R. G. No. 27499,1 is whether the property in dispute should be assigned to the estate of Marcelino Tongco, or whether it should be set aside as belonging exclusively to the widow. 1. Marcelino Tongco and Anastacia Vianzon contracted marriage on July 5, 1894. 2. Marcelino died leaving his widow. 3. The niece of the deceased, Josefa Tongco, was named administratrix of the estate. It appears that shortly before the death of Marcelino Tongco, he had presented claims in a cadastral case in which he had asked for titles to certain properties in the name of the conjugal partnership consisting of himself and his wife, and that corresponding decrees for these lots were issued in the name of the conjugal partnership not long after his death. 4. In the cadastral case, the widow began action when she presented a motion for a revision of certain decrees within the one-year period provided by the Land Registration Law. Issue was joined by the administratrix of the estate. A decision was rendered by Judge Rovira concluding that the properties will be the exclusive property of the widow, Anastacia. 5. The administratrix of the estate filed an action against Anastacia Vianzon for the recovery of specified property and for damages. 6. Judge Rovira rendered a decision saying that the one- half of the value of the shares in the Sociedad Cooperativa de Credito Rural de Orani, to the amount of ten pesos (P10), belonging to the intestate estate of Marcelino Tongco, which one-half interest must appear in the inventory of the property of the estate of the deceased Marcelino Tongco. 7. The administratrix of the estate of Marcelino Tongco had appealed. The first action filed, which was in the cadastral case, has now become the last in number and is 27399. The second action filed in the property case has now become the first in number and is 27498. As pursuant to the agreement of the parties the two cases were tried together, they can be best disposed of together on appeal. ISSUE: Whether the property in question belonged to the exclusively to the widow as she testified. Yes. If the testimony of the widow be discarded, as it should be, then the presumption of the Civil Code, fortified by the unassailable character of Torrens titles, arises, which means that the entire fabric of appellee's case is punctured. Counsel relies on that portion of section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure as provides that "Parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in whose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, . . ., upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person . . ., cannot testify as to any matter of fact

    occurring before the death of such deceased person . . . ." Counsel is eminently correct in emphasizing that the object and purpose of this statute is to guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard to the transaction is question on the part of the surviving party. He has, however, neglected the equally important rule that the law was designed to aid in arriving at the truth and was not designed to suppress the truth. Moreover, a waiver was accomplished when the adverse party undertook to cross-examine the interested person with respect to the prohibited matters. The result, therefore, must be to adhere to the findings and rulings of the trial judge. No prejudicial error is noted in the proceedings. Judgment affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

    You might also like