Razon vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No.

74306 (March 16, 1992)

FACTS: Vicente Chuidian (administrator of the estate of his deceased father) led a complaint for the
delivery of the certicates of stocks representing the 1,500 share holdings of his deceasedfather,
Juan Chuidian, in the E. Razon, Inc. (organized for the purpose of bidding for the arrastreservices in
South Harbor, Manila). In the answer, Razon alleged that he owned the shares andthe same
remained in his possession. It was alleged that the late Juan Chuidan did not pay anyamount
whatsoever for the 1,500 shares in question. CHUIDIANs EVIDENCE: On April 23, 1966, stock
certicate No. 003 for 1,5000 shares of stockof defendant corporation was issued in the name of
Juan Chuidian (Juan). Razon had notquestioned (not until the demand was made) Juans ownership
of the shares and had notbrought any action to have the certicate of stock over the said shares
cancelled.RAZONs EVIDENCE (In the answer and in his oral Testimony): After organizing E. Razon,
Inc.,Razondistributed shares, previously placed in the names of the withdrawing
nominalincorporators, to some friends including Juan. The shares of stock were registered in the
nameof Juan only as nominal stockholder and with the agreement that the said shares were
ownedand held by the Razon (as he was the one who paid for all the subscription). Juan was given
theoption to buy the same but did not do so. CFI (RTC) declared that Enrique Razon is the owner of
the said shares. IAC (CA) reversed andruled that Juan Chuidian is the owner. IAC excluded the
testimony of Razon under the deadmans statute rule (DMS) under Section 20 (a) Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, although suchtestimony was not objected to during trial.ISSUE: WON Razons
testimony is within the prohibition under DMS Rule.HELD:
No.
The case was not led
against
the administrator of the estate, nor was it led uponclaims
against
the estate.The purpose of DMS Rule is that if persons having a claim against the estate of the
deceasedor his properties were allowed to testify as to the supposed statements made by him
(deceasedperson), many would be tempted to falsely impute statements to deceased persons as the
lattercan no longer deny or refute them, thus unjustly subjecting their properties or rights to false
orunscrupulous claims or demands. The purpose of the law is to 'guard against the temptation togive

false testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the surviving party.However,
the rule is only applicable to
a case against the administrator or its representativeof an estate upon a claim against the estate of
the deceased person.

US vs. Evangelista G.R. No. L-8132 (March 25, 1913) Donato Vergara III