G.R. No. 972 : March 14, 1904
JOSE V. L. GONZAGA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CARMEN F. DE CAÑETE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
This is an action for the rescission of a contract of lease. The plaintiff, Jose V. L. Gonzaga, leased the hacienda “Rosario” from the defendant, Carmen F. de Cañete. The plaintiff sought to rescind the lease on several grounds, including: (1) the closure of a canal that supplied water power to the hacienda by the municipality of Granada; (2) the defendant’s failure to furnish carts as stipulated; and (3) the alleged exclusion of a parcel of land called “Lausurica” from the leased property. The case had been remanded for a new trial after a previous judgment for the defendant was reversed. Upon retrial in the same court and before the same judge, judgment was again rendered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, assigning various errors.

ISSUE:
The main issues for resolution were:
1. Whether the retrial of the case in the same special court and before the same judge was proper;
2. Whether the trial court erred in its factual findings regarding the plaintiff’s grounds for rescission, particularly concerning the water supply, the exclusion of “Lausurica,” and the failure to furnish carts; and
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in its procedural rulings, including the denial of the plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of survey/accounting commissions and for the written transcription of witness testimony.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
1. On the venue and judge for the new trial: The Court held that the new trial was a continuation of the original case, not a new suit. Therefore, it was properly tried in the same special court. Furthermore, the law allowing the Supreme Court to designate another judge for a new trial was not mandatory; thus, the original judge was competent to retry the case.
2. On the factual grounds for rescission: The Court, adhering to its limited authority to review questions of fact in the absence of a motion for a new trial, upheld the trial court’s findings. Specifically:
The trial court found that the defendant had acquired a prescriptive right to the canal’s water and that the municipality’s closure was unauthorized. More critically, it found as a fact that the defendant subsequently opened a new canal furnishing equivalent water power, causing no damage to the plaintiff. This finding negated the right to rescind on this ground.
Regarding the “Lausurica” parcel, the trial court found that it was not included in the boundaries designated and delivered to the plaintiff at the inception of the lease, and that the plaintiff did not claim it until seeking rescission. The Supreme Court deemed this finding conclusive.
The Court reiterated its prior ruling that the defendant’s failure to furnish carts was not a ground for rescission.
3. On the procedural rulings: The Court found no error.
The trial court was not obligated to appoint, at its own expense, commissions to survey the land or assess damages. It was the plaintiff’s duty to procure and present such evidence.
The fact that a witness was formerly the defendant’s lawyer was not a ground to reject his testimony under the Code of Civil Procedure.
There was no legal requirement for testimony in civil cases to be taken down in writing.
The judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.