G.R. No. L‑3062
FACTS
– Maria Magallanes (plaintiff‑appellant) sought a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.
– The trial court denied the motion; no separate motion was filed alleging that the judgment was unsupported by the evidence.
– The cause of action arose in 1894. The trial court applied the statute of limitations contained in the Civil Code.
– Magallanes contended that the limitation period in the Code of Civil Procedure should govern the case.
ISSUE
Whether the judgment of the lower court, rendered in favor of the defendant‑appellee Teodora Cañeta, is justified on the facts of the pleadings and, alternatively, which statute of limitationsCivil Code or Code of Civil Procedureapplies to a cause of action that accrued before the latter’s promulgation.
RULING
– The Supreme Court held that the only question is whether the facts admitted and set out in the lower court’s decision justify the judgment; the court is not empowered to re‑examine the evidence absent a proper new‑trial ground.
– Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly excludes its limitation rules from actions that accrued prior to its effectivity; consequently, the Civil Code limitation period governs the 1894 cause of action.
– The lower court’s judgment in favor of the defendant is fully supported by the record.
– The judgment is AFFIRMED, costs are awarded to the appellee, and the case is to be remanded to the trial court after twenty days for entry of judgment, followed by ten days for proper action.
(Concurrence: Arellano C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Tracey; J. Johnson did not sit.)