Joaquin v. Navarro
Art. 43, Civil Code. If there is doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the others.
Rule 123, section 69 (ii) of the Revised Rules of Court. When two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not (1) shown who died first, and there are no (2) particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is presumed from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes according to the following rules…
In Joaquin v. Navarro, the pertinent facts are that the father, mother and son died during the liberation of Manila, 1946. They were both on a building which was on fire and which was being monitored by Japanese soldiers who would shoot those who tried to escape. The son, upon attempting the escape, was shot and killed. Minutes later, the building collapsed therefore killing both parents as well. The question of who died first was important in determining who would inherit. The Supreme Court held the argument that Sec. 69 (ii) of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court repealed Art. 43 of the Civil Code was not relevant because neither of the provisions are applicable in the case at bar. Both provisions, as their language implies, are intended as a substitute for facts, and so are not to be applied when there are facts. In this case, the son died first. The facts are adequate to solve the problem of survivorship without the need for statutory presumptions.
