(B10) LAW 100 - Joaquin V Navarro (GR No. L-5426-28)

Joaquin v.
Navarro
GR No. L-5426-28
May 29, 1953
J. Tuason
SUBJECT MATTER:
CIVIL PERSONALITY: Capacity to Act and Restrictions Thereon
DOCTRINE(S):
Rule 123, section 69(ii) of the Revised Rules of Court:
"When two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
conflagration, and it is not (1) shown who died first, and there are no (2)
particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is
presumed from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes,
according to the following rules...
Article 33 of the Civil Code of 1889
"Whenever a doubt arises as to which was the first to die of the two or more
persons who would inherit one from the other, the person who alleges the prior
death of either must prove the allegation; in the absence of proof the presumption
shall be that they died at the same time, and no transmission of rights from one
to the other shall take place."
ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals which modified the previous ruling of The Court
of First Instance of Manila.
Petitioner(s): Ramon Joaquin
Parties
Respondent(s Antonio Navarro
):
SUMMARY:
During the battle of liberation of Manila, some of the members of the Navarro family were killed
leading to a case of settling the distribution of the estates left by the deceased. The main issue is related
to the sequence of the death of the members. The case was first brought to the Court of First Instance
of Manila wherein the sequence of death is as follows: 1) Pilar Concepcion and Natividad, 2) Joaquin
Navarro Jr., 3) Angela Joaquin de Navarro, 4) Joaquin Navarro Sr. The Court of Appeals modified this
decision, ruling that the son, (Joaquin Navarro Jr) outlived his mother, Angela Joaquin. The petitioner
then applied for the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court
reversed the decision and affirmed the decision of the lower trial court (CFI) in regards to the
distribution of the left estates. Thus, following the ruling of the CFI, where the son died before the
mother, the petitioner gets the right of succession.
ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● During the battle of liberation of Manila, Joaquin Navarro Sr(70), his wife Angela Joaquin de
Navarro(67), their daughters Pilar(32/33), Concepcion and Natividad (23-25), their son, Joaquin
Navarro Jr (30), and his wife, Adela Conde sought refuge on the ground floor of the German Club
building.
● The building was set on fire and the Japanese started shooting those who tried to escape,
shooting the daughters. While Angela Joaquin stayed inside the building, the others with
Francisco Lopez, a friend, dashed out of the building where they were met by a Japanese soldier,
shooting Joaquin Navarro Jr in the head while the other were able to escape and hide for three
days in an air raid shelter. Joaquin Navarro Sr, Adela Conde and Francisco Lopez, on their way to
St. Therese Academy, met Japanese patrols, killing Joaquin Sr. and Adela Conde.
● Testimony from the survivor, Francisco Lopez
● The case was first brought to the Court of First Instance of Manila wherein the sequence of
death is as follows: 1) Pilar Concepcion and Natividad, 2) Joaquin Navarro Jr., 3) Angela Joaquin
de Navarro, 4) Joaquin Navarro Sr.
● The Court of Appeals modified this decision, ruling that the son, (Joaquin Navarro Jr) outlived his
mother, Angela Joaquin. CA reasoned out that Survivorship cannot be established with the
death of only one person, there must be proof that one was alive while other has already died.
Based on Lopez’ testimony, it is clear that Joaquin Jr did die after taking a shot to his head as he
came out of the building, but there is no evidence that could help ascertain Angela’s condition
from the time her son left her until the time that he was dead. Thus the CA followed statutory
presumptions where Joaquin Jr (30 years old) outlived his mother who was above 60 in age.
● After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the CA. Noting the
presumption that the son outlived the mother is based purely on speculations, while the
opposite theory, of the mother outliving her son, which is deduced from established facts, is the
stronger probability
ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

1. Whether or not the son outlived his mother? NO
● Note that if the mother died first, the benefits of succession would go to the respondent,
Antonio Navarro who is the son of Joaquin Navarro Sr from his first marriage. On the other
hand, if the son died first, the benefits would go to Ramon Joaquin, the natural child(born out of
wedlock) of Angela and adopted child of the deceased spouses.
RATIO:
1. Angela Joaquin de Navarro died after her son
○ Guided by Art 33 of the Civil COde of 1889, Francisco Lopez’s testimony contained facts
from which it can be inferred that the son died before his mother. The CA’s presumption
that the mother died before her son is based purely on speculations. CA’s decision to
follow statutory presumptions should also not be considered as there were facts from
which inferences can be made.
DISPOSITIVE:
SC: “We are constrained to reverse the decision under review, and hold that the distribution of the
decedents' estates should be made in accordance with the decision of the trial court. This
result precludes the necessity of passing upon the question of "reserva troncal" which was
put forward on the hypothetical theory that Mrs. Joaquin Navarro's death preceded that of
her son. Without costs.”

(B10) LAW 100 - Joaquin V Navarro (GR No. L-5426-28)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(B10) LAW 100 - Joaquin V Navarro (GR No. L-5426-28)

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

(B10) LAW 100 - Joaquin V Navarro (GR No. L-5426-28)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joaquin v.

Rule 123, section 69(ii) of the Revised Rules of Court:

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

her son. Without costs.”

You might also like