Those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same right
of property or subject matter, such as “personal representatives,
heirs, devisees, legatees, assigns, voluntary grantee or judgment
creditors or purchasers from them without notices to the fact.
Mutual succession of relationship to the same rights of property.
1. There must be a relation of privity between the party and the
2. The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor in
interest, while holding the title to the property.
3. The admission is in relation to said property.
Alpuerto vs. Perez Pastor
Privity in estate may have arisen by succession, acts mortis causa
or acts inter vivos.
Where one derives title to property from another, the
act/declaration/omission of the latter, while holding the title,
in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
The privity in estate may have arisen by succession by acts
mortis cause or by acts inter vivos.
It is an established rule in evidence that the declaration of a
person under whom the title is claimed are receivable against the
successor so claiming, on the theory that there is sufficient
identity of interest to render the statements of the former
equally receivable with the admissions of the present
owner, and that the rights of the latter are those of the former.
The principle on which such evidence is received is that the
declarant was so situated that he probably knew the truth, and
his interest were such that he would not have made the admissions
to the prejudice of his title or possession, unless they were true.
The regard which one so situated would have to his interest is
considered sufficient security against falsehood.
In order to render an admission of a former owner of property
competent against his successor in title, it must have been made
at a time when the title was in the declarant.
Declarations of the transferor, made subsequent to the transfer,
1. Where the declarations are made in the presence of the transferee
and he acquiesces in the statements or asserts no rights where
he ought to speak;
2. Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud established as
where the thing granted has a corpus, and the possession of
the thing after the sale or transfer, remains with the seller
3. Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to
defraud, which conspiracy exists between the vendor and