40 JOAQUIN v NAVARRO Petitioner argues that the on the assumption that there is total lack of the evidence, as the
n that there is total lack of the evidence, as the CA said, then
G.R. No. L-5426-28
DATE: May 29, 1953
By: Miguel Gayares
Topic: Natural Persons
Petitioner: Ramon Joaquin
Respondent: Antonio C. Navarro
Ponente: Tuason , J.
DOCTRINE: It is enough that the circumstances by which it is sought to prove the survivorship must be
such as are competent and sufficient when tested by the general rules of evidence in civil cases.
FACTS:
 During the battle for the liberation of Manila, Sps. Joaquin Navarro, Sr. and Angela Joaquin,
together with their children Pilar, Concepcion, Natividad, and Joaquin Jr., with his wife Adela,
sought refuge in the ground floor of the German Club in Manila City.
 The building was packed with refugees and it 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 on the ground. Joaquin Sr. and Joaquin Jr. decided to
abandon the building. However, they could not convince Angela to join them.
 Joaquin Sr., Joaquin Jr., Adela, and a friend, Franciso, ran out of the building. However, as they
came out, Joaquin Jr. was shot in the head and immediately dropped. The others lay flat on
the ground.
 Minutes after, the German Club collapsed and trapped the people inside, presumably
including Angela.
 Joaquin Sr., Adela, and Francisco reached an air raid shelter nearby and stayed for about
three days. They were forced to leave it eventually to the shellings, which tore the building
open. Unfortunately, they met Japanese patrols who then fired at the refugees, killing Joaquin
Sr. and Adela. Only Francisco survived.
 The proceedings in this case were instituted in the CFI for the summary settlement of the
estates of the aforementioned deceased.
 CFI: The court found the deaths of the following persons to have occurred in the following
order:
o The Navarro Girls (Pilar, Concepcion, and Natividad);
o Joaquin Navarro, Jr.;
o Angela Joaquin; and
o Joaquin Navarro, Sr.
 CA: Concurred with the CFI except that, with regard to Angela and Joaquin Jr., it was Joaquin
Jr. that was declared to have survived his mother.
 Petitioner contested the CA’s ruling since the question as to whether Angela died before
Joaquin Jr. radically affects his right of succession, who is an acknowledged natural child of
Angela and Joaquin Sr.
 This also affects that of Respondent, who is the son of Joaquin Sr. by first marriage.
ISSUE: W/N Joaquin Jr. survived his mother Angela during the liberation of Manila?
HELD: NO. The evidence, based on the testimony of Francisco who survived the holocaust, shows that
Angela was unhurt when her son left her to escape from the German Club.
RULING: The CA’s findings were all taken from Francisco. It argued that since the evidence of
survivorship is uncertain and insufficient, the statutory presumption must be applied. Therefore, Joaquin
Jr., aged 30, must be deemed to have survived his mother, Angela, who was above 60 years of age.
Angela and Joaquin Jr. should, under Art. 33 of the old Civil Code (NCC, Art. 43), be held to have died at
the same time. In addition, he argued that Sec. 69(ii) of Rule 123 (formerly Sec. 334 (37) of Act No. 190)
of the ROC has not repealed Art. 33 of the old Civil Code.
However, the Court ruled that neither of the two provisions is applicable for the following reasons:
 Both provisions are intended as substitute for facts, and so are not to be available when there
are facts. The situation that it contemplates is when facts are not only unknown but
unknowable such that there is no specific evidence as to the time of death and that no
evidence can be produced. Since that is the case, the law may apply the law of fairness.
However, based on Sec. 69(ii) or Rule 123, where there are facts from which a rational
conclusion can be made, the presumption does not step in, and the rule of preponderance of
evidence controls. Therefore, it is convenient and necessary to detail Francisco’s testimony,
which the CFI described as “disinterested and trustworthy” and by the CA as “entitled to
credence.”
 The testimony of Francisco contains adequate facts to solve the problem of survivorship
between Angela and Joaquin Jr. such that it keeps the statutory presumption out of this case.
Based on the testimony, a fair and reasonable inference can arrived at the fact that Joaquin Jr. died
before his mother, Angela.
Recalling the facts, the Court narrated the following findings:
 Joaquin Jr. was killed while running. He died 15m away in front of the German Club.
Considering that he is in his prime at the age of 30, he must have run the distance in 5
seconds or less.
 When Joaquin Jr. fled from the German Club, Angela was left inside alive and unhurt. While
there are possibilities that she could have died within 5 seconds or less, the probabilities are
remote.
 Angela’s determination to stay inside the Club may give an idea of a condition of relative
safety and that death was not so imminent. This lends credence to Francisco’s statement that
the club collapse about 40 minutes after Joaquin Jr. was shot, and that it was the collapse that
killed Angela. This is clearly longer than 5 seconds and it warrants the inference that Angela
was still alive when her son died.
 In addition, the Japanese set fire to trap the refugees. Therefore, there was no reason to
waste their ammunition except upon those who tried to escape, which leads to the
presumption that Angela survived her son longer by staying within the Club.
It is enough that the circumstances by which it is sought to prove the survivorship must be such as are
competent and sufficient when tested by the general rules of evidence in civil cases.
In conclusion, the presumption that Angela died before her son is based purely on surmises without any
sure foundation in evidence. The opposite – that Angela outlived her son – is deduced from established
facts, which when weighed by common experience, gives the idea that such inference is a very strong
probability.
WHEREFORE, we are constrained to reverse the decision under review and hold that the distribution of
the estate should be made in accordance with the CFI’s decision.