Tison V CA

Tison v.
CA
Facts: Corazon and Rene (petitioners) are nieces and nephew, respectively, of Teodora who died earlier without
any ascendants or descendants. Petitioners were the children of Hermogenes, the brother of Teodora.
Teodora was survived by his husband, Martin, who adjudicates the said land to himself as sole heir and sold some
of the properties left by Teodora to Domingo (respondent).
Petitioners then filed an action for reconveyance claiming that they are entitled to inherit one-half of the property
by right of representation from the disputed property presenting documentary evidence thru Corazon’s testimony
to prove filial relation to wit: a family picture; baptismal certificates of Teodora and Hermogenes Dezoller;
certificates of destroyed records of birth of Teodora Dezoller and Hermogenes Dezoller; death certificates of
Hermogenes Dezoller and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero; certification of destroyed records of live birth of Corazon
and Rene Dezoller; joint affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar attesting to the parents, date and place of
birth of Corazon and Rene Dezoller; joint affidavit of Juliana Cariaga and Manuela Cariaga attesting to the fact of
marriage between Martin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller; and the marriage certificate of Martin and Teodora
Guerrero.
During trial, Domingo argued that they are not really nephews and nieces of Teodora. One of the nieces, Corazon,
testified that, during her lifetime, Teodora admitted to her that they are her nephews and nieces. The testimony
was objected on the ground that the relationship must be proved by evidence other than such act or declaration of
the declarant.
Issue: Whether or not additional evidence is necessary, other than the declaration of Teodora to Corazon, to
establish pedigree.
Held: No.
The SC said that the primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the relationship between the parties concerned
is the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime, or
sometime in 1946, categorically declared that the former is Teodora's niece.
Such a statement is considered a declaration about pedigree which is admissible, as an exception to the hearsay
rule, under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (complied)
(2) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the subject of inquiry; (complied)
(3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the declaration; and (in issue)
(4) that the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only before the commencement of the suit
involving the subject matter of the declaration, but before any controversy has arisen thereon. (complied)
Furthermore, where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative common to both claimant and declarant,
but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's estate, the relationship of the declarant to the common
relative may not be proved by the declaration itself. There must be some independent proof of this fact. As an
exception, the requirement that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship,
does not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right
through his declarations to the property of some other member of the family.
We are sufficiently convinced, and so hold, that the present case is one instance where the general requirement on
evidence aliunde may be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the estate of the declarant herself.
Conformably, the declaration made by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is her niece, is
admissible and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship, notwithstanding the fact that there was no other
preliminary evidence thereof, the reason being such declaration is rendered competent by virtue of the necessity
of receiving such evidence to avoid a failure of justice. More importantly, there is in the present case an absolute
failure by all and sundry to refute that declaration made by the decedent. From the foregoing disquisitions, it may
thus be safely concluded, on the sole basis of the decedent's declaration and without need for further proof
thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephew of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero.
Additional discussion: Respondent failed to object
Applying the general rule in the present case would nonetheless produce the same result. For while the
documentary evidence submitted by petitioners do not strictly conform to the rules on their admissibility, we are
however of the considered opinion that the same may be admitted by reason of private respondent's failure to
interpose any timely objection thereto at the time they were being offered in evidence . It is elementary that an
objection shall be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible document is offered in evidence, otherwise, the
objection shall be treated as waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege which the party may waive.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that counsel for private respondent unreservedly cross-examined
petitioners, as the lone witness, on the documentary evidence that were offered. At no time was the issue of the
supposed inadmissibility thereof, or the possible basis for objection thereto, ever raised. Instead, private
respondent's counsel elicited answers from the witness on the circumstances and regularity of her obtention of
said documents: The observations later made by private respondent in her comment to petitioners' offer of
exhibits, although the grounds therefor were already apparent at the time these documents were being adduced
in evidence during the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison but which objections were not timely raised therein,
may no longer serve to rectify the legal consequences which resulted therefrom. Hence, even assuming ex gratia
argumenti that these documents are inadmissible for being hearsay, but on account of herein private respondent's
failure to object thereto, the same may be admitted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein
asserted.

Tison V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tison V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Tison V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tison v.

Additional discussion: Respondent failed to object

You might also like