COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON THE “STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OR PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND” AS A HEARSAY EXCEPTION UNDER PHILIPPINE RULES OF EVIDENCE

1. Overview of the Hearsay Rule

Under Philippine law (Rule 130 of the Rules of Court), a statement made out of court and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is generally hearsay and is inadmissible. The primary reason for exclusion is that hearsay cannot be tested by cross-examination, thus raising concerns about the reliability and trustworthiness of such evidence.

However, the Rules of Court recognize multiple exceptions to the hearsay rule, founded either on (a) necessity—because the declarant is unavailable to testify—and (b) circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness—because certain external markers suggest that the out-of-court statement is likely to be reliable. One of these exceptions pertains to “statements of a decedent or of a person of unsound mind.”

2. Legal Basis in the Revised Rules on Evidence

Under both the old (1989) and amended (2019) versions of the Rules on Evidence, we find provisions that allow the admission of statements of a deceased or incompetent (unsound mind) declarant under specific conditions. While the exact section numbering may vary between compilations or references, the substance remains that the law permits a deceased or mentally incapacitated person’s out-of-court statements if certain foundational requirements are satisfied.

In summary form, most authoritative references recite that:

“The declaration of a person since deceased or who is of unsound mind, made at a time when the fact did not appear to be controversial, respecting a fact which was at that time fresh in his memory and of which he was personally cognizant, is admissible in evidence, provided it was made in good faith and without any incentive to falsify.”

This principle is often discussed alongside or within the broader topic of “Declarations Against Interest,” but is specifically categorized in some outlines or textbooks as “Statement of Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind” to underscore its unique conditions.

3. Rationale for Admissibility

Unavailability of Declarant
Since the declarant (the person who made the statement) has died or has become mentally incapacitated, direct testimony is impossible. Courts have thus recognized the necessity of receiving such statements if they bear sufficient hallmarks of reliability.
Circumstantial Guarantee of Trustworthiness
Statements made at a time when there was no apparent motive to fabricate are generally presumed to be sincere or truthful. When the declarant is either deceased or incompetent to testify, the statement’s reliability must be assessed through these circumstantial guarantees rather than through contemporaneous cross-examination.
Prevention of Fraud
Courts also aim to prevent a litigant from being deprived of evidence simply because the person who possessed relevant knowledge has passed away or is of unsound mind. Disallowing all evidence from the decedent or incompetent might encourage opportunistic claims or defenses. By creating a narrow exception, the court balances the need for evidence with the need for reliability.

4. Elements or Foundational Requirements

For a statement of a decedent or person of unsound mind to be admissible as an exception to hearsay, the most commonly listed conditions include:

Declarant is deceased or of unsound mind.
- Death of the declarant is self-evident; or
- In the case of a person of unsound mind, there must be a showing (e.g., medical certification, judicial finding) that the declarant was incompetent to testify due to mental incapacity.
Personal Knowledge.
- The statement must concern a matter within the personal knowledge of the declarant. Hearsay-upon-hearsay (a statement recounting another person’s statement) remains inadmissible unless covered by another exception.
- The declarant must have had firsthand information about what they declared.
Statement Made Before the Controversy Arose or Before Any Motive to Falsify.
- Often phrased as “at a time when the fact in issue or the matter declared had not yet become controversial,” ensuring the declarant had no pecuniary or personal stake in shaping a narrative to gain advantage in anticipated litigation.
- This temporal requirement is critical to show good faith and a lack of motive to distort the truth.
Statement Made in Good Faith.
- It must appear that the declarant was speaking honestly, without bias, fraud, or any incentive to misrepresent.
- Good faith is often inferred if the declarant was unaware of any pending or potential dispute at the time.
Relevance.
- As with all evidence, the statement must be relevant to the issues involved in the case. Even if it meets all other conditions, irrelevance would render it inadmissible.
Necessity.
- While not always separately listed in the text of the rule itself, necessity underpins the entire exception: the declarant cannot be called to the stand (by reason of death or incapacity), so this out-of-court statement is allowed in the interest of justice.

5. Illustrative Examples

Land Dispute Involving a Deceased Owner
- Suppose a property boundary conflict arises after the owner has passed away. A diary entry or letter written by the now-deceased owner describing the metes and bounds of the property before the controversy would be generally inadmissible hearsay. However, if it meets the conditions—written in good faith, at a time when there was no dispute, and showing the decedent’s personal knowledge—it could qualify under this exception.
Statements by a Person of Unsound Mind
- If an individual was competent at the time they made a statement about a transaction they personally witnessed, but subsequently suffered mental illness rendering them incompetent, their prior statements can be admitted if they were made when there was no motive to lie and the matter was not yet in controversy.
Estate Claims
- In an action against an estate—for instance, a claim that the deceased recognized a debt or liability—written or verbal acknowledgments made by the decedent before any legal scuffle ensued might be admitted under this exception, provided they appear trustworthy and the declarant had personal knowledge of the liability.

6. Interaction with Other Hearsay Exceptions and the “Dead Man’s Statute”

Declaration Against Interest (Rule 130)
A closely related hearsay exception is Declaration Against Interest, wherein a statement by a now-unavailable declarant is admitted if it goes against that declarant’s pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest. While that exception specifically hinges on the fact that no one would ordinarily make a statement so damaging to themselves unless it were true, the “statement of a decedent or person of unsound mind” can be broader—it does not always need to be “against interest” but must meet the reliability tests (time made, lack of controversy, good faith, etc.).
Dead Man’s Statute (Sec. 23, Rule 130)
This is a rule on witness disqualification, preventing certain interested parties from testifying about communications or transactions with a deceased person when offered against the estate. The “statement of a decedent” hearsay exception is different: it deals with the deceased’s own out-of-court statements being offered into evidence, not a living party’s testimony about the decedent’s statements. Practitioners must be cautious: even if a living claimant is disqualified to testify under the Dead Man’s Statute, the decedent’s relevant statements might still come in under the hearsay exception—assuming the foundational requisites are met.

7. Limitations and Points of Caution

Strict Construction
Courts strictly construe this exception because hearsay is disfavored. A party seeking to invoke it must clearly establish all the foundational elements.
Credibility Assessment
Even if admitted, the statement is not automatically conclusive. The court still weighs its probative value, considering the circumstances under which the declaration was made.
Possible Exclusion if Found Unreliable
If there is proof the declarant harbored a motive to lie, or if the statement was made under suspicious circumstances (e.g., right before a family dispute actually began), it may be excluded for failing the trustworthiness standard.
Requirement of Corroboration in Some Instances
Depending on the nature of the statement (especially if it is self-serving for the party introducing it), the court may look for other evidence to corroborate or test the reliability of the decedent’s or incompetent person’s statement.
Overlap with Other Exceptions
In some cases, a statement could qualify under multiple exceptions—e.g., it might be simultaneously a dying declaration (Sec. 37, Rule 130, 2019 Rules) or a statement against interest—but the proponent need only prove it clearly falls under one recognized hearsay exception for it to be admitted.

8. Relevant Jurisprudence

Philippine case law has applied or discussed this exception in various property disputes and civil claims. While direct Supreme Court rulings on the specific textual label “Statement of Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind” are not as numerous as, say, dying declarations or declarations against interest, the following themes emerge in jurisprudence:

Necessity: Courts underscore that the unavailability of the declarant is the driving reason why the statement needs to be introduced.
Strict Adherence to Foundational Requirements: Courts demand a clear showing that the statement was made when there was no pending controversy and the declarant had no motive to misrepresent.
Careful Scrutiny: In property and succession cases (e.g., Heirs of X vs. Heirs of Y), the Supreme Court has often cautioned lower courts to consider all surrounding circumstances—such as the mental capacity of the declarant at the time of the statement and the chronological proximity to the dispute.

A well-known principle (though often discussed under the umbrella of “declaration against interest” or “pedigree declarations”) is that once the proponent has established these requirements, the statement should not be disqualified solely because the declarant cannot be cross-examined. Rather, the statement’s weight is assessed in conjunction with other pieces of evidence.

9. Practical Tips for Lawyers

Establish All Foundational Elements Early
When offering such a statement in evidence, be sure to lay down testimonial or documentary proof of:
- Declarant’s death or mental incapacity
- The time and circumstances under which the statement was made
- The declarant’s personal knowledge
- The nonexistence of a controversy at that time
- The declarant’s good faith
Corroborate Where Possible
Present other supporting evidence (e.g., letters, contemporaneous documents, testimonies of disinterested witnesses) that increases the reliability of the declarant’s out-of-court statement. This lessens the likelihood of the court excluding the statement on grounds of untrustworthiness.
Anticipate Objections
Opposing counsel may argue that the statement is (a) self-serving, (b) not truly prior to the controversy, or (c) made under conditions suggesting bias. Carefully rebut these by showing objective facts proving the declarant had no interest to lie at the time.
Differentiate from the Dead Man’s Statute
If you represent the estate (or an adverse party), clarify the interplay between the Dead Man’s Statute and this hearsay exception. The statute concerns disqualification of an interested surviving party from testifying; it does not automatically bar the decedent’s prior statements that meet the rules on hearsay exceptions.

Conclusion

The “Statement of a Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind” hearsay exception is grounded on both necessity (the declarant is unavailable) and inherent trustworthiness (the statement was made before any controversy and in good faith). Proper application requires strict proof of all foundational elements—unavailability, personal knowledge, timing, lack of motive to falsify, and relevance. When these requisites are met, Philippine courts will admit the statement as an exception to the hearsay rule, subject to the court’s ultimate assessment of its weight in light of the entire record.

Use this exception wisely and meticulously. Ensure meticulous compliance with each requirement, gather supporting evidence for authenticity and reliability, and be prepared to explain why the statement deserves credence despite the lack of cross-examination. If done correctly, it can be a powerful tool, particularly in estate disputes, property controversies, and other litigation scenarios where the key declarant has passed away or is rendered incompetent.