Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court: Agrava, Peralta & Agrava For Petitioner. Leonardo Abola For Respondent
Supreme Court: Agrava, Peralta & Agrava For Petitioner. Leonardo Abola For Respondent
by first
SUPREME COURT marriage.
Manila
The facts, which is not disputed, are outlined in the statement in the
EN BANC decision of the Court of Appeals as follows:
G.R. No. L-5426 May 29, 1953 "On February 6, 1945, while the battle for the liberation of Manila was
raging, the spouses Joaquin Navarro, Sr. and Angela Joaquin, together
RAMON JOAQUIN, petitioner, with their three daughters, Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad, and their
vs. son Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and the latter's wife, Adela Conde, sought
ANTONIO C. NAVARRO, respondent. refuge in the ground floor of the building known as the German Club, at
the corner of San Marcelino and San Luis Streets of this City. During their
Agrava, Peralta & Agrava for petitioner. stay, the building was packed with refugees, shells were exploding
Leonardo Abola for respondent. around, and the Club was set on fire. Simultaneously, the Japanese
started shooting at the people inside the building, especially those who
were trying to escape. The three daughters were hit and fell of the ground
TUASON, J.:
near the entrance; and Joaquin Navarro, Sr., and his son decided to
abandon the premises to seek a safer heaven. They could not convince
This three proceedings was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Angela Joaquin who refused to join them; and son Joaquin Navarro, Sr.,
Manila in the summary settlement of states of Joaquin Navarro, Sr., his his son, Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and the latter's wife, Angela Conde, and a
wife Angela Joaquin de Navarro, Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and Pilar Navarro, friend and former neighbor, Francisco Lopez, dashed out of the burning
deceased. All of them having been heard jointly, Judge Rafael Amparo edifice. As they came out, Joaquin Navarro, Jr. was shot in the head by a
handed down a single decision which was appealed to the Court of Japanese soldier and immediately dropped. The others lay flat on the
Appeals, whose decision, modifying that the Court of First Instance, in ground in front of the Club premises to avoid the bullets. Minutes later,
turn was elevated to the Supreme Court for review. the German Club, already on fire, collapsed, trapping many people
inside, presumably including Angela Joaquin.
The main question represented in the first two courts related to the
sequence of the deaths of Joaquin Navarro, Sr., his wife, and their "Joaquin Navarro, Sr., Mrs. Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and Francisco Lopez
children, all of whom were killed in the massacre of civilians by Japanese managed to reach an air raid shelter nearby, the stayed there about three
troops in Manila in February 1945. The trial court found the deaths of this days, until February 10, 1915, when they were forced to leave the shelter
persons to have accurred in this order: 1st. The Navarro girls, named be- cause the shelling tore it open. They flied toward the St. Theresa
Pilar, Concepcion and Natividad; 2nd. Joaquin Navarro, Jr.; 3rd. Angela Academy in San Marcelino Street, but unfortunately met Japanese
Joaquin de Navarro, and 4th, Joaquin Navarro, Sr. The Court of Appeals Patrols, who fired at the refugees, killing Joaquin Navarro, Sr., and his
concurred with the trial court except that, with regard to Angela Joaquin daughter-in-law.
de Navarro and Joaquin Navarro, Jr., the latter was declared to have
survived his mother.
"At the time of the masaccre, Joaquin Navarro, Sr. was aged 70; his wife
Angela Joaquin was about 67 years old; Joaquin Navarro, Jr., about 30;
It is this modification of the lower court's finding which is now being Pilar Navarro was two or three years older than her brother; while the
contested by the petitioner. The importance of the question whether other sisters, Concepcion and Natividad Navarro y Joaquin, were
Angela Joaquin de Navarro died before Joaquin Navarro, Jr., or vice between 23 and 25."
versa, lies in the fact that it radically affects the rights of succession of
Ramon Joaquin, the present petitioner who was an acknowledged natural
The Court of Appeals' finding were all taken from the testimony of
child of Angela Joaquin and adopted child of the deceased spouses, and
Francisco Lopez, who miraculously survived the holocaust, and upon
them the Court of Appeals opined that, "as between the mother Angela is clear that the law disregards episodic details, and treats the battle as
Joaquin and the son Joaquin Navarro, Jr., the evidence of the an overall cause of death in applying the presumption of survivorship.
survivorship is uncertain and insufficient" and the statutory presumption
must be applied. The appellate Court's reasoning for its conclusion is "We are thus led the conclusion that the order in which the members of
thus stated: the Navarro-Joaquin family met their end is as follows: first, the three
daughters Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad; then the mother Angela
"It does not require argument to show that survivorship cannot be Joaquin; then the son Joaquin Navarro, Jr., and days later (of which there
established by proof of the death of only one of the parties; but that there is no doubt), the father Joaquin Navarro, Sr."
must be adequate proof that one was alive when the other had already
died. Now in this case before us, the testimony of the sole witness Lopez Much space in the briefs is taken in a discussion of whether section
is to the effect that Joaquin Navarro, Jr. was shot and died shortly after 334(37) of Act No. 129, now section 69 (ii) of Rule 123 of the Rules of
the living the German Club in the company of his father and the witness, Court, has repealed article 33 of the civil code of 1889, now article 43 of
and that the burning edified entirely collapsed minutes after the shooting the New Civil Code. It is the contention of the petitioner that it did not,
of the son; but there is not a scintilla of evidence, direct or circumstantial, and that on the assumption that there is total lack of evidence, as the
from which we may infer the condition of the mother, Angela Joaquin, Court of Appeals said, then Angela Joaquin and Joaquin Navarro, Jr.
during the appreciable interval from the instant his son turned his back to should, under article 33, be held to have died at the same time.
her, to dash out to the Club, until he died. All we can glean from the
evidence is that Angela Joaquin was unhurt when her son left her to The point is not of much if any relevancy and will be left open for the
escape from the German Club; but she could have died almost consideration when obsolute necessity there for arises. We say irrelevant
immediately after, from a variety of causes. She might have been shot by because our opinion is that neither of the two provisions is applicable for
the Japanese, like her daughters, killed by falling beams from the burning the reasons to be presently set forth.
edifice, overcome by the fumes, or fatally struck by splinters from the
exploding shells. We cannot say for certain. No evidence is available on
Rule 123, section 69 (ii) of the Revised Rules of Court, reads:
the point. All we can decide is that no one saw her alive after her son left
her aside, and that there is no proof when she died. Clearly, this
circumstance alone cannot support a finding that she died latter than her When two person perish in the same calamity, such as wreck,
son, and we are thus compelled to fall back upon the statutory battle or conflagration, and it is not (1) shown who died first, and
presumption. In deed, it could be said that the purpose of the there are no (2) particular circumstances from when it can be
presumption of survivorship would be precisely to afford a solution to inferred, the survivorship is presumed from the probabilities
uncertainties like these. Hence the son Joaquin Navarro, Jr. aged 30, resulting from the strength and ages of the sexes, according to
must be deemed to have survived his mother, Angela Joaquin, who was the following rules:
admittedly above 60 years of age (Rule 123, sec. 69, subsec. (ii), Rules
of Court). xxx xxx xxx
"The total lack of evidence on how Angela Joaquin died likewise disposes Article 33 of the Civil Code of 1889 of the following tenor:
of the question whether she and her deceased children perished in the
same calamity. There being no evidence to the contrary, the only guide is Whenever a doubt arises as to which was the first to die to the
the occasion of the deaths, which is identical for all of them; that battle for two or more persons who would inherent one from the other, the
the liberation of Manila. A second reason is that the law, in declaring that persons who alleges the prior death of either must prove the
those fallen in the same battle are to be regarded as perishing in the allegation; in the absence of proof the presumption shall be that
same calamity, could not overlooked that a variety of cause of death can they died at the same time, and no transmission of rights from
( and usually do) operate in the source of combats. During the same one to the other shall take place.
battle, some may die from wounds, other from gages, fire, or drowning. It
Most provisions, as their language plainly implies, are intended as a as "disinterested and trustworthy" and by the Court of Appeals as
substitute for lacks and so are not to be available when there are facts. "entitled to credence."
With particular reference to section 69 (ii) of Rule 123, "the situation
which it present is one in which the facts are not only unknown but Lopez testified:
unknowable. By hypothesis, there is no specific evidence as to the time
of death . . . ." . . . it is assumed that no evidence can be produced. . . . Q. You said you were also heat at that time as you leave the
Since the facts are unknown and unknowable, the law may apply the law German Club with Joaquin Navarro, Sr., Joaquin Navarro, Jr. and
of fairness appropriate to the different legal situation that arises." (IX the latter's wife?- A. Yes, sir.
Wigmore on Evidence, 1940 ed., 483.)
Q. Did you fall? — A. I fell down.
In In re Wallace's Estate, 220 Pac. 683, which the Court of Appeals cited
the applied with the respect to the deaths of the Navarro girls, pointing
Q. And you said you fell down close to Joaquin Navarro, Jr.? A.
out that "our rule is taken from the Fourth Division of sec. 1936 of the
Yes, sir.
California Code of Civil Procedure," the Supreme Court of California said:
Q. When the German Club collapsed where were you? — A. We
When the statue speaks of "particular circumstances from which
were out 15 meters away from the building but I could see what
it can be inferred" that one died before the other it means that
was going on.
there are circumstances from which the fact of death by one
before the other may be inferred as a relation conclusion from the
facts proven. The statue does not mean circumstances which xxx xxx xxx
would shown, or which would tend to show, probably that one
died before the other. Grand Lodge A.O.W.W. vs. Miller, 8 Cal. Q. Could there have been an interval of fifteen minutes between
App. 28, 96 Pac. 22. When by circumstantial evidence alone, a the two events, that is the shooting of Joaquin Navarro, Jr. and
party seeks to prove a survivorship contrary to the statutory the collapse of the German Club? — A. Yes, sir, I could not say
presumption, the circumstances by which it is sought to prove the exactly, Occasions like that, you know, you are confused.
survivorship must be such as are competent and sufficient when
tested by the general rules of evidence in civil cases. The Q. Could there (have) been an interval of an hour instead of
inference of survivorship cannot rest upon mere surmise, fifteen minutes? — A. Possible, but not probable.
speculation, or conjecture. As was said in Grand
Lodge vs. Miller, supra, "if the matter is left to probably, then the Q. Could it have been 40 minutes? — A. Yes, sir, about 40
statue of the presumption." minutes.
It is manifest from the language of section 69 (ii) of Rule 123 and of that xxx xxx xxx
of the foregoing decision that the evidence of the survivorship need not
be direct; it may be indirect, circumstantial, or inferential. Where there are Q. You also know that Angela Joaquin is already dead? — A.
facts, known or knowable, from which a rational conclusion can be made, Yes, sir.
the presumption does not step in, and the rule of preponderance of
evidence controls. Q. Can you tell the Honorable Court when did Angela Joaquin
die? — A. Well, a few minutes after we have dashed out, the
Are there particular circumstances on record from which reasonable German Club, which was burning, collapsed over them, including
inference of survivorship between Angela Joaquin and her son can be Mrs. Joaquin Navarro, Sr.
drawn? Is Francisco Lopez' testimony competent and sufficient for this
purpose? For a better appreciation of this issue, it is convenient and xxx xxx xxx
necessary to detail the testimony, which was described by the trial court
Q. From your testimony it would appear that while you can give xxx xxx xxx
positive evidence to the fact that Pilar, Concepcion and Natividad
Navarro, and Joaquin Navarro, Jr. died, you can not give the Q. How come that these girls were shot when they were inside
same positive evidence to the fact that Angela Joaquin also died? the building, can you explain that? — A. They were trying to
— A. Yes, sir, in the sense that I did not see her actually die, but escape probably.
when the building collapsed over her I saw and I am positive and
I did not see her come out of that building so I presumed she died It is our opinion that the preceding testimony contains facts quite
there. adequate to solve the problem of survivorship between Angela Joaquin
and Joaquin Navarro, Jr. and keep the statutory presumption out of the
xxx xxx xxx case. It is believed that in the light of the conditions painted by Lopez, a
fair and reasonable inference can be arrived at, namely: that Joaquin
Q. Why did you have to dash out of the German Club, you, Mr. Navarro, Jr. died before his mother.
Joaquin Navarro, Sr. and Mr. Joaquin Navarro Jr. and the latter's
wife? — A. Because the Japanese had set fire to the Club and While the possibility that the mother died before the son can not be ruled
they were shooting people outside, so we thought of running out, it must be noted that this possibility is entirely speculative and must
away rather than be roasted. yield to the more rational deduction from proven facts that it was the
other way around. Joaquin Navarro, Jr., it will be recalled, was killed,
xxx xxx xxx while running, in front of, and 15 meters from, the German Club. Still in
the prime of life, 30, he must have negotiated that distance in five
Q. You mean to say that before you jumped out of the German seconds or less, and so died within that interval from the time he dashed
Club all the Navarro girls, Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad, were out of the building. Now, when Joaquin Navarro, Jr. with his father and
already wounded? — A. to my knowledge, yes. wife started to flee from the clubhouse, the old lady was alive and unhurt,
so much so that the Navarro father and son tried hard to have her come
Q. They were wounded? — A. Yes, sir. along. She could have perished within those five or fewer seconds, as
stated, but the probabilities that she did seem very remote. True, people
in the building were also killed but these, according to Lopez, were
Q. Were they lying on the ground or not? — A. On the ground
mostly refugees who had tried to slip away from it and were shot by
near the entrance, because most of the people who were shot by
Japanese troops. It was not very likely that Mrs. Joaquin Navarro, Sr.
the Japanese were those who were trying to escape, and as far
made an attempt to escape. She even made frantic efforts to dissuade
as I can remember they were among those killed.
her husband and son from leaving the place and exposing themselves to
gun fire.
xxx xxx xxx
This determination of Mrs. Angela Joaquin to stay where she was may
Q. So you noticed that they were killed or shot by the Japanese a well give an idea, at the same time, of a condition of relative safety in the
few minutes before you left the place? — A. That is what I think, clubhouse at the moment her husband, son, and daughter-in-law left her.
because those Japanese soldiers were shooting the people It strongly tends to prove that, as the situation looked to her, the perils of
inside especially those trying to escape. death from staying were not so imminent. And it lends credence to Mr.
Lopez' statement that the collapse of the clubhouse occurred about 40
xxx xxx xxx minutes after Joaquin Navarro the son was shot in the head and dropped
dead, and that it was the collapse that killed Mrs. Angela Navarro. The
Q. And none of them was not except the girls, is that what you Court of Appeals said the interval between Joaquin Navarro's death and
mean? A — . There were many people shot because they were the breaking down of the edifice was "minutes". Even so, it was much
trying to escape. longer than five seconds, long enough to warrant the inference that Mrs.
Angela Joaquin was sill alive when her son expired
The Court of Appeals mentioned several causes, besides the collapse of weighed by common experience, engender the inference as a very
the building, by which Mrs. Navarro could have been killed. All these are strong probability. Gauged by the doctrine of preponderance of evidence
speculative , and the probabilities, in the light of the known facts, are by, which civil cases are decided, this inference ought to prevail. It can
against them. Dreading Japanese sharpshooters outside as evidenced not be defeated as in an instance, cited by Lord Chief Justice Kenyon,
by her refusal to follow the only remaining living members of her family, "bordering on the ridiculous, where in an action on the game laws it was
she could not have kept away form protective walls. Besides, the building suggested that the gun with which the defendant fired was not charged
had been set on fire trap the refugees inside, and there was no necessity with shot, but that the bird might have died in consequence of the fright."
for the Japanese to was their ammunition except upon those who tried to (1 Moore on Facts, 63, citing Wilkinson vs. Payne, 4 T. R. 468.)
leave the premises. Nor was Angela Joaquin likely to have been killed by
falling beams because the building was made of concrete and its It is said that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals which the
collapse, more likely than not, was sudden. As to fumes, these do not appellant impugns, and which has been discussed, involves findings of
cause instantaneous death; certainly not within the brief space of five fact which can not be disturbed. The point is not, in our judgment, well
seconds between her son's departure and his death. considered. The particular circumstances from which the parties and the
Court of Appeals drew conclusions are, as above seen, undisputed, and
It will be said that all this is indulging in inferences that are not this being the case, the correctness or incorrectness of those conclusions
conclusive. Section 69(ii) of Rule 123 does not require that the inference raises a question of law, not of fact, which the Supreme Court has
necessary to exclude the presumption therein provided be certain. It is jurisdiction to look into. As was said in 1 Moran Commentaries on the
the "particular circumstances from which it (survivorship) can be inferred" Rules of ?Court, 3rd Ed. 856, 857, "Undisputed evidence is one thing,
that are required to be certain as tested by the rules of evidence. In and contradicted evidence is another. An incredible witness does not
speaking of inference the rule can not mean beyond doubt, for "inference cease to be such because he is not impeached or contradicted. But when
is never certainty, but if may be plain enough to justify a finding of fact." the evidence is purely documentary, the authenticity of which is not
(In re Bohenko's Estate, 4 N.Y.S. 2nd. 427, citing Tortora vs. State of questioned and the only issue is the construction to be placed thereon, or
New York, 269 N.Y. 199 N.E. 44; Hart vs. Hudson River Bridge Co., 80 where a case is submitted upon an agreement of facts, or where all the
N.Y.). 622.) As the California courts have said, it is enough that "the facts are stated in the judgment and the issue is the correctness of the
circumstances by which it is sought to prove the survivorship must be conclusions drawn therefrom, the question is one of law which may be
such as are competent and sufficient when tested by the general rules of reviewed by the Supreme Court."
evidence in civil cases." (In re Wallace's Estate, supra.) "Juries must
often reason," says one author, "according to probabilities, drawing an The question of whether upon given facts the operation of the statutory
inference that the main fact in issue existed from collateral facts not presumption is to be invoked is a question of law.
directly proving, but strongly tending to prove, its existence. The vital
question in such cases is the cogency of the proof afforded by the The prohibition against intermeddling with decisions on questions of
secondary facts. How likely, according to experience, is the existence of evidence refers to decisions supported by substantial evidence. By
the primary fact if certain secondary facts exist?" (1 Moore on Facts, Sec. substantial evidence is meant real evidence or at least evidence about
596.) The same author tells us of a case where "a jury was justified in which reasonable men may disagree. Findings grounded entirely on
drawing the inference that the person who was caught firing a shot at an speculations, surmises, or conjectures come within the exception to the
animal trespassing on his land was the person who fired a shot about an general rule.
hour before at the same animal also trespassing." That conclusion was
not airtight, but rational. In fact, the circumstances in the illustration leave
We are constrained to reverse the decision under review, and hold that
greater room for another possibility than do the facts of the case at hand.
the distribution of the decedents' estates should be made in accordance
with the decision of the trial court. This result precludes the necessity of
In conclusion the presumption that Angela Joaquin de Navarro died passing upon the question of "reserva troncal" which was put forward on
before her son is based purely on surmises, speculations, or conjectures the hypothetical theory that Mrs. Joaquin Navarro's death preceded that
without any sure foundation in the evidence. the opposite theory — that of her son. Without costs.
the mother outlived her son — is deduced from established facts which,
Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and
Labrador, JJ., concur.