G.R. No. L-3439; July 31, 1951
ALEJANDRO SAMSON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGAPITO B. ANDAL, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appeal was taken directly from the Court of First Instance of Manila to the Supreme Court. The appellants’ second assignment of error raised a question of fact, specifically contesting the lower court’s finding that on October 25, 1945, when the obligation became due, the plaintiff offered to pay the loan in Philippine Currency based on the value of the Philippine peso on the date the loan was obtained. Both the appellants and the appellee discussed this assignment of error in their briefs. The appellee argued the issue was immaterial because he sought declaratory relief. The resolution notes that if there has been a breach of contract, declaratory relief is not available under section 2, Rule 66, which allows a contract to be construed only before a breach. The lower court considered the question material, as non-compliance with the contract would trigger attorney’s fees amounting to twenty-five percent of the loan principal plus accrued interest.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can directly decide the appeal, given that it involves a question of fact raised by the appellants’ second assignment of error.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot directly decide the appeal because it involves a question of fact. Consequently, the case is ordered remanded to the Court of Appeals for its decision.