GR 1395; (March, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1395 : March 28, 1904
JUANA BRAGA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE MILLORA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Juana Braga, filed an action in the justice of the peace court of Infanta, Zambales, to annul a contract concerning a parcel of land, which she alleged was an illegal mortgage executed by her brother over property belonging to their deceased parents. The defendant, Jose Millora, claimed he acquired the land through a sale from the plaintiff’s brother and later obtained a formal title via a composition title under Spanish law. The justice of the peace ruled for the defendant. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Zambales reversed the decision, adjudging the plaintiff as the owner of an undivided one-seventh part of the land and ordering its recovery. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, taking exception only to the judgment itself and not filing a motion for a new trial.
ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the lower court given that the appellant only took an exception to the judgment and did not file a motion for a new trial.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Under Section 497 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, when an appellant only excepts to the judgment without moving for a new trial, the Supreme Court’s review is limited to errors of law apparent from the pleadings and the judgment itself. The Court cannot examine the evidence to reevaluate questions of fact.
The Court addressed the appellant’s implicit challenge to the sufficiency of the trial court’s factual findings. It held that while Section 133 of the Code indicates a trial court should make findings of fact, the trial court in this case made a sufficient finding by stating the plaintiff was, “according to said proofs, the owner” of a one-seventh share. This was a finding on the ultimate fact in issueownershipand not a mere conclusion of law. Following American jurisprudence, such a finding on the ultimate issue is sufficient to support a judgment. Since the appellant did not request more specific findings from the trial court nor except to the judgment on that ground, the Supreme Court found no reversible error of law. The judgment was therefore affirmed.