Facts:

The case "Involuntary Insolvency of Mariano Velasco & Co., Et Al." centers around the registered partnership Mariano Velasco & Co., which was declared insolvent in 1927 following a petition filed by its creditors. Tan Chico, a claimant and appellant in this case, contended that he had a claim of P16,457.29 against the insolvent partnership, which he asserted was a deposit and thus entitled to a preferential claim based on paragraph 3 of section 48 of Act No. 1956. The assignee of the insolvency, Vicente Nepomuceno, opposed this claim, arguing that the amount in question was not a deposit but an ordinary loan.

In the first trial held in the Court of First Instance, the judge ruled against Tan Chico, determining that his claim lacked the necessary characteristics of a deposit to receive preference in the insolvency proceedings. Following this, Tan Chico appealed the decision to the Supre

...

Facts:

Insolvency of the Registered Partnership

• In 1927, the registered partnership of Mariano Velasco & Co. was declared insolvent upon a petition filed by its creditors.
• The declaration of insolvency set the stage for subsequent claims against the insolvent estate.

The Claim of Tan Chico

• Tan Chico, acting as claimant and appellant, filed a claim against the insolvent estate for the sum of P16,457.29.
• Tan Chico asserted that the said sum was a deposit, thereby qualifying as a preferred claim under paragraph 3 of section 48 of Act No. 1956.

The Position of the Assignee

• The assignee in the insolvency, Vicente Nepomuceno, opposed the claim.
• The opposition was based on the contention that the sum represented an ordinary loan rather than a deposit.

Evidence and Testimonies Presented

• Testimonial Evidence
• Paulino Tan, allegedly acting as the attorney-in-fact of Tan Chico, provided testimony regarding the transaction.
• His testimony was deemed unreliable as he could not definitively state whether interest was being drawn on the money; he further noted that the "deposit" was made during the Spanish regime, a period before his birth.
• His inability to confirm the nature of the transaction cast significant doubt on the assertion that the money was deposited.
• Documentary Evidence
• A copy of the ledger from the account books of Mariano Velasco & Co. was produced, which included a portion of Tan Chico’s account; however, this ledger made no mention of the alleged deposit.
• An inventory prepared by Jose Velasco, which listed the sum as a deposit, was also submitted.
• The inventory was made after the declaration of insolvency and thus was considered to have little evidentiary value.
• Additional Evidence
• The claimant presented no further substantial evidence to substantiate that the transaction in question was indeed a deposit.

Issue:

Classification of the Transaction

• Whether the claimed sum of P16,457.29 should be considered as a deposit, which would afford it a preferred status under the applicable law, or merely as an ordinary loan.
• Whether the evidence presented by Tan Chico sufficiently established the nature of the transaction as a deposit.

Evidentiary Sufficiency

• Whether the testimonial and documentary evidence provided by the claimant was adequate and reliable to substantiate the claim for preferential treatment.
• The impact and weight of evidence such as the ledger entries and the post-declaration inventory on determining the true character of the transaction.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)