G.R. No. L-1382
October 26, 1906

FACTS
– Defendants were convicted in the Municipal Court of Manila for violating §3 of Manila Ordinance No. 2 (prohibition of gambling).
– They appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and filed a demurrer to the complaint.
– The CFI sustained the demurrer, holding that the ordinance’s Section 5, which mentions “faro” and “ruleta,” did not apply to the alleged gambling activity.
– The United States (plaintiff‑appellant) sought review of the CFI’s decision before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE
Whether the United States may appeal a CFI order sustaining a demurrer when the underlying matter does not raise a question of statutory validity or constitutionality.

RULING
– The Supreme Court affirmed that, under Section 44 of General Orders No. 58, a party (including the United States) may appeal a judgment or an order dismissing a complaint.
– However, Section 43 of the same General Orders limits appellate jurisdiction from Municipal Court or Justice‑of‑the‑Peace decisions to cases that involve the validity or constitutionality of a statute.
– No question concerning the validity or constitutionality of Ordinance No. 2 was raised; consequently, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
– The appeal was dismissed with costs de officio. The case was remanded to the Municipal Court after ten days for appropriate action.

Concurrence: Chief Justice Arellano, and Justices Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey.