Scribd
Upload
31 views8 pages

Marella v. Reyes: Estate Inventory Ruling

In the case Marella vs. Reyes, the plaintiff sought to exclude certain parcels of land from the estate inventory of Filomeno Encarnacion, which the administrator did not oppose. The court initially ruled against the exclusion based on the rejection of the plaintiff's testimony, but it was determined that the opposing party's failure to object to the witness's competency constituted a waiver. Ultimately, the ruling was reversed, and the land was ordered to be excluded from the inventory, granting the plaintiff her relief.

Uploaded by

quimenianojeremy
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views8 pages

Marella v. Reyes: Estate Inventory Ruling

In the case Marella vs. Reyes, the plaintiff sought to exclude certain parcels of land from the estate inventory of Filomeno Encarnacion, which the administrator did not oppose. The court initially ruled against the exclusion based on the rejection of the plaintiff's testimony, but it was determined that the opposing party's failure to object to the witness's competency constituted a waiver. Ultimately, the ruling was reversed, and the land was ordered to be excluded from the inventory, granting the plaintiff her relief.

Uploaded by

quimenianojeremy
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Marella vs. Reyes, 12 Phil.

1
(1908)
G.R. No. L-4389

Jeremy B Quimeniano
FACTS:
In the inventory of the estate of Filomeno
Encarnacion there were included the four parcels of
land, which is brought against his administrator to
have them excluded from the inventory as being
the property of the plaintiff. The administrator did
not oppose the relief asked for, but Jose T. Paterno,
who was a creditor of the deceased for a claim
allowed by the commissioners in the amount of
P51.595.02. made two motions one to be satisfied
in the administrator's place as defendant, and the
other to he allowed to intervene as a co-defendant.
The intervention was allowed and judgment was
rendered in the Court of First Instance adverse to
In refusing to order the exclusion of this land from
the inventory, the judge based his decision largely
upon the rejection of what he considered decisive
testimony given by the plaintiff in person. She
presented herself at the trial as a witness, was
sworn, examined and cross-examined without
objection as to her competency, nor does that
question appear to have been raised until stated by
the judge in his decision. He says:
The evidence given by the plaintiff in this suit
cannot be considered. All of the acts sworn to by
her took place before the death of Filomeno
Encarnacion, and the fact that his wife was present
and is still living is not sufficient to render the
plaintiff a competent witness, because it has not
been shown that the widow of the deceased herself
took part in the liquidation of accounts or was a
party to the transaction, inasmuch as the money
which the plaintiff lent she lent to the deceased
and not his wife, Andrea Goco.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the real property claimed by the


plaintiff should be excluded from the inventory
RULING:

Had the opposing party interposed an objection to


this witness on the ground of incompetency, her
testimony could not have been received. His
omission to object to her operated as a waiver. The
acceptance of an incompetent witness to testify in
a civil suit, as well as the allowance of improper
questions that may be put to him while on the
stand is a matter resting in the discretion of the
litigant. He may assert his right by timely objection
or he may waive it, either expressly or by silence.
In any case the option rests with him.
Once admitted, the testimony is in the case for
what it is worth and the judge has no power to
disregard it for the sole reason that it could have
been excluded, if it had been objected to, nor to
strike it out on his own motion. The disqualification
of witnesses found in rules of evidence of this
character, is one convenience of litigants, and
which consequently lies within their control.
Consequently the land should have been excluded
from the inventory and the plaintiff should have
her relief. The judgment of the Court of the First
Instance was reversed.
THANK YOU

You might also like