1

Icard v. Masigan
G.R. No. L-47442 April 8, 1941 Moran, J.
petitioners
In the matter of the estate of George M. Icard, deceased, JOSEPH K. ICARD
respondents
CLARO MASIGAN, as special administrator of the estate of George M. Icard; and
EFFIE CARLAND ICARD
summary
Joseph seeks to prove by oral testimony his claim of P2,000 as opposed to the
compromise agreement of P39,478.16 where he is entitled to half. Respondents oppose
to this stating that since the action is against a deceased person, Joseph cannot be
allowed to testify as to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such
deceased person. Court allowed Josephs oral testimony because the law is designed
to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the party
defendant, in order to remove from the surviving party the temptation to falsehood
and the possibility of fictitious claims against the deceased. Where the purpose of
the oral testimony is to prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear
written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the estate of the deceased, the law has
certainly no reason for its application.

facts of the case
The Antamok Central Mining Group of mining claims were owned by Fred M. Harden, George M. Icard
(deceased), and Joseph K. Icard (plaintiff). These mining claims were sold to Big Wedge Mining Company, the
deed of sale was executed jointly by the owners, plaintiff was represented by his atty. in fact, George Icard.
Due to a dispute with Big Wedge, a compromise agreement was approved by the court wherein the sum of
P39,478.16 was to be paid to Joseph in full settlement of his and Georges full interest. The order directed that
said amount be divided between Joseph and the estate of the deceased George in the manner and proportion
to be determined by the probate.
Joseph may claim half of the P39,478.16 if he wishes to, under the legal provision that the interests of the
co-owners shall be presumed equal until the contrary is proved. (CC393) Instead, Joseph only claims P2000,
and it is this reduced claim, which he seeks to establish by his oral testimony.
The administrator's appeal to this Court rests mainly on the theory that the probate court erred in allowing
the claimant to testify to the services rendered by him in favor of his father, because the action being one
against the administrator of a deceased person, plaintiff cannot be allowed to testify as to any matter of fact
which occurred before the death of such deceased person

issue
WON Josephs oral testimony may be admitted? YES.

ratio
Section 383, par. 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is now Rule 123, section 26, paragraph (c), of the
Rules of Court, is designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the party
defendant, in order to remove from the surviving party the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of
fictitious claims against the deceased. Where, as in the instant case, the purpose of the oral testimony is to
prove a lesser claim than what might be warranted by clear written evidence, to avoid prejudice to the
estate of the deceased, the law has certainly no reason for its application. Ratione cessante, cessat ipsa lex
(The reason for a law ceasing, the law itself ceases.)