G.R. No. 1353 , March 22, 1904
ANA MARIA ALCANTARA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MIGUEL MONTENEGRO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
On June 3, 1902, Ana Maria Alcantara filed a complaint against Miguel Montenegro. She alleged that she was the owner of a house and lot in Calle Soledad, Tondo. She claimed that in December 1901, Montenegro, in constructing a building on his adjacent lot, willfully exceeded his boundaries and took possession of 2.20 square meters of her land. She prayed for a declaration of her ownership over the disputed portion, restoration of her rights, and damages.

In his answer, Montenegro admitted owning the adjacent lot but denied encroaching upon Alcantara’s property, asserting that his construction stayed within his own lot’s limits.

After trial, the lower court rendered judgment on January 31, 1903, in favor of Montenegro, dismissing the complaint and ordering Alcantara to pay the costs. The court held that the burden of proof was on Alcantara and that the evidence she presented was insufficient to establish her lawful ownership over the 2.20 square meters in question.

Alcantara appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Notably, she did not file a motion for a new trial in the lower court based on the grounds provided in the Code of Civil Procedure (such as insufficiency of evidence or the decision being contrary to law).

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the lower court regarding the sufficiency of evidence to prove ownership of the disputed land, given that the appellant did not file a motion for a new trial.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court.

The Court held that its jurisdiction in the appeal was limited. Since the appellant, Alcantara, did not file a motion for a new trial in the court below upon the specific grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure (e.g., insufficiency of the evidence or the decision being contrary to law), the Supreme Court could not review the evidence. In such a case, the Supreme Court acts as a court of cassation, confined to resolving questions of law raised in the assignment of errors. It cannot re-examine or re-decide questions of fact.

Consequently, the Supreme Court was bound by the factual findings of the trial court. The lower court found that Alcantara failed to prove her ownership of the 2.20 square meters. In the absence of a valid challenge to this factual conclusion through a proper motion for a new trial, there was no legal basis to reverse it. The costs of the suit were taxed against the appellant.