EN BANC
[G.R. No. 30587. December 4, 1929. ]
SABINA REYES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. E. C. WELLS as Administrator of the Estate of John Northcott, deceased, ET AL., Defendants, E. C. WELLS, Appellant.
J. W. Ferrier, for Appellant.
Iñigo R. Bitanga and Ignacio P. Santos, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. BILLS AND NOTES; EVIDENCE OF NON-DELIVERY OF CAUSE OR CONSIDERATION; COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. — The main contention of the defendant-appellant in this case is, that the plaintiffs’ allegation that the promissory notes in question have not been paid, is not supported by the evidence, inasmuch as the only witness who testified this point was incompetent to testify upon transaction had between himself and the deceased creditors, according to section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the testimony of another disinterested witness, corroborated by two other witnesses, may be admitted to show that the defendants did not deliver the money which constituted the cause or consideration of said promissory notes.
2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The prohibition contained to the Iowa Code against a witness’ testifying upon any communication or transaction between himself and a deceased person is substantially the same as that contained in section 383, No. 7, of our Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2252. Therefore, the construction put upon it by the court in the cases cited in this decision is applicable to the present case.
2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The prohibition contained to the Iowa Code against a witness’ testifying upon any communication or transaction between himself and a deceased person is substantially the same as that contained in section 383, No. 7, of our Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2252. Therefore, the construction put upon it by the court in the cases cited in this decision is applicable to the present case.
D E C I S I O N
VILLAMOR, J.:
On June 7, 1923, the plaintiffs filed their original complaint against John E. Rader and John Northcott, the original defendants in this cause.
Several demurrers were interposed, and in consequence the complaint was amended several times. The seventh amended complaint was filed on June 11, 1925, and was admitted by the trial court in August the same year. In the meantime the defendants Rader and Northcott died, and in said seventh complaint they have been substituted by their respective administrators, E. C. Wells, administrator of the estate of John Northcott, and Alberto Suguitan, administrator of the estate of John E. Rader.
The complaint prays that the promissory notes and deeds executed by the plaintiffs in favor of said Rader and Northcott, as well as their record in the registry of deeds of Ilocos Norte, be cancelled, and that the defendants, as administrators, be ordered to pay the damages set forth in paragraph 7 of the complaint, with costs.
It is alleged in the complaint: (1) That said J. E. Rader and J. Northcott had installed a maguey stripping machine in the municipality of Burgos, Ilocos Norte, and an International truck in a shed on a lot; that J. E. Rader told plaintiff Saturnino R. Guerrero that he had purchased said articles from Macleod & Co., for the sum of P23,600, and offered to sell them to said plaintiff for P23,000 payable in installments, but that Guerrero replied that he could not do so for lack of money to operate the machine; (2) that said J. E. Rader promised to furnish said plaintiff with the amount of P12,000 for that purpose, and delivered to the latter P400 "in advance" to commence the exploitation of said machine; (3) that after said sum was delivered, the same plaintiff was required to make out two promissory notes; one for P7,000 and the other for P5,000 in favor of said Rader "guaranteed by a mortgage on certain property sufficient to cover said sum of P12,000;" that said mortgage shall be endorsed to some business houses in the City of Manila; that Saturnino Guerrero executed two mortgage deeds, attached to the complaint, signed by Saturnino R. Guerrero, his mother and his brothers, co
Several demurrers were interposed, and in consequence the complaint was amended several times. The seventh amended complaint was filed on June 11, 1925, and was admitted by the trial court in August the same year. In the meantime the defendants Rader and Northcott died, and in said seventh complaint they have been substituted by their respective administrators, E. C. Wells, administrator of the estate of John Northcott, and Alberto Suguitan, administrator of the estate of John E. Rader.
The complaint prays that the promissory notes and deeds executed by the plaintiffs in favor of said Rader and Northcott, as well as their record in the registry of deeds of Ilocos Norte, be cancelled, and that the defendants, as administrators, be ordered to pay the damages set forth in paragraph 7 of the complaint, with costs.
It is alleged in the complaint: (1) That said J. E. Rader and J. Northcott had installed a maguey stripping machine in the municipality of Burgos, Ilocos Norte, and an International truck in a shed on a lot; that J. E. Rader told plaintiff Saturnino R. Guerrero that he had purchased said articles from Macleod & Co., for the sum of P23,600, and offered to sell them to said plaintiff for P23,000 payable in installments, but that Guerrero replied that he could not do so for lack of money to operate the machine; (2) that said J. E. Rader promised to furnish said plaintiff with the amount of P12,000 for that purpose, and delivered to the latter P400 "in advance" to commence the exploitation of said machine; (3) that after said sum was delivered, the same plaintiff was required to make out two promissory notes; one for P7,000 and the other for P5,000 in favor of said Rader "guaranteed by a mortgage on certain property sufficient to cover said sum of P12,000;" that said mortgage shall be endorsed to some business houses in the City of Manila; that Saturnino Guerrero executed two mortgage deeds, attached to the complaint, signed by Saturnino R. Guerrero, his mother and his brothers, co
