G.R. No. L-2667 February 13, 1951
JULIO FERNANDEZ, ETC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. TERESO FERNANDEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant appealed from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to the Court of Appeals. The appellant and appellee filed their briefs with the Court of Appeals. In their brief, the appellants, in their first assignment of error, quoted a portion of the testimony of appellant Tereso Fernandez to contend that personal services rendered to the donor by the donee do not constitute recoverable debts, making the donations simple and subject to collation, contrary to the lower court’s holding that they were remuneratory and not subject to collation. In their second assignment of error, the appellants alleged the lower court erred in not declaring the donations inofficious, referencing documentary evidence (Exhibit I) on the total value of the estate. The lower court made no finding on the estate’s total value as it deemed the donations onerous. However, the appellants stated in their brief that the issues boiled down to purely legal questions and, jointly with the appellee, filed a motion with the Court of Appeals to forward the record to the Supreme Court on the ground that only purely legal questions were involved. Relying on this, the Court of Appeals certified the record to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that it involves purely legal questions and thus falls within the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ordered the record remanded to the Court of Appeals for proper action. The Court held that the Court of Appeals would not and could not have certified the case if it had examined the appellants’ brief, as the appellants raised questions of fact therein. Specifically, the appellants’ first assignment of error required a determination of whether the services rendered constituted recoverable debts—a question of fact. The second assignment of error required a revision of the evidence to determine the total value of the estate—another question of fact. The lower court also made no finding of fact on whether the services constituted recoverable debts. Therefore, the case involved questions of both fact and law, placing it under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 29 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The certification was based solely on the erroneous joint motion and statement of the parties, not on an examination of the briefs.