G.R. No. 25888 , November 6, 1926
GERARDO GUSTILO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, as administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Victoriano Rodriguez, defendant-appellant.

DOCTRINE:
When an appellant fails to bring the complete record of evidence to the appellate court, particularly the oral evidence and part of the documentary evidence, the Supreme Court cannot review questions of fact. The Court is bound by the factual findings of the trial court and will limit its review to whether the conclusions of law are supported by those facts.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, heirs of the deceased Luis Gustilo, filed an action to recover their one-sixth (1/6) share in the proceeds from the sale of the Kanlaon Hacienda. The hacienda was originally owned in partnership by Luis Gustilo and Victoriano Rodriguez. Victoriano Rodriguez sold the hacienda to the Gomez Brothers in 1916. The plaintiffs claimed their share of the sale price, minus amounts already received.

The defendant, as administrator of Victoriano Rodriguez’s estate, contested the claim. He argued that the total sale price should only be P90,000 (asserting that P45,000 represented the value of improvements made by the buyers, the Gomez Brothers), making the plaintiffs’ 1/6 share P15,000. After deducting amounts already received by the plaintiffs, the defendant claimed only P4,707.16 was due to the estate from the plaintiffs, not the other way around.

The trial court found, based on contracts of lease from 1912 and 1913, that the total sale price of the hacienda, including improvements, was P135,000. Thus, the plaintiffs’ 1/6 share was P22,500. From this, the court deducted: (a) P5,625, representing Gerardo Gustilo’s share which had been previously transferred to Victoriano Rodriguez, and (b) P6,292.84, which the plaintiffs had already received on various occasions. The court also found that Gerardo Gustilo was entitled to a legacy of P940.70 from his deceased sister Adelina’s share of the estate. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs P10,582.16, with Gerardo Gustilo’s specific portion being P940.72.

ISSUE

Was the trial court correct in its factual determination of the total sale price of the Kanlaon Hacienda and the consequent computation of the plaintiffs’ share?

RULING

Yes, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that it could not review the appellant’s assignments of error because they raised purely questions of fact. The appellant failed to submit the complete record of evidence to the Supreme Court; specifically, part of the documentary evidence and all of the oral evidence were not brought up on appeal. Following established jurisprudence, the Supreme Court is precluded from reviewing evidence not before it. Consequently, the Court accepted the facts as found by the trial court. Based on those facts, the conclusion of law reached by the trial court was correct. The appealed judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellant.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.”