G.R. No. L-3782
ANTONIO ZARAGOZA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED RAMON M. DE VIADEMONTE, defendant-appellee.
January 25, 1908

FACTS:
Antonio Zaragoza (plaintiff) filed a claim for P2,000 against the estate of Ramon M. de Viademonte for his services in surveying and preparing plans for the estate’s land. The commissioners appointed to consider claims against the estate allowed Zaragoza’s claim for the full P2,000.

The administrator of the estate appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI found that while the deceased had contracted with Zaragoza and another for a P4,000 survey, the resulting plan was not acceptable for land registration and thus did not fully comply with the contract. However, the CFI also found that services were indeed rendered, and the deceased had partially accepted the results. The CFI determined that the reasonable value of the total services performed was P500, and Zaragoza’s share was P250. Consequently, the CFI rendered judgment, ordering the estate to pay Zaragoza P250 with 6% interest from April 17, 1906.

Zaragoza excepted to the CFI judgment and filed a bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court. Crucially, no motion for a new trial was made by Zaragoza in the CFI. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Zaragoza assigned errors, arguing that the CFI erred in not considering the commissioners’ decision (which awarded him P2,000), in not admitting “Exhibit E” as evidence, and in not awarding him the full P2,000.

ISSUE:
1. Can the Supreme Court re-examine the evidence and review the factual findings of the Court of First Instance regarding the value of services rendered when the appellant failed to file a motion for a new trial in the lower court?
2. Were the facts as found and stated by the CFI sufficient to support its conclusion to award P250 to the plaintiff?

RULING:
1. No, the Supreme Court cannot re-examine the evidence and review factual findings without a prior motion for new trial in the lower court. The Court, citing Section 777 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that for the Supreme Court to examine the evidence adduced during trial and determine if the lower court’s factual findings were in accordance with the weight of the evidence, a proper motion for a new trial must have been made in the lower court, and an exception taken if it was overruled. Since Zaragoza failed to file such a motion for a new trial in the CFI, the Supreme Court’s review was limited to determining whether the facts admitted in the pleadings and the facts stated in the CFI’s decision were sufficient to support its conclusions.
2. Yes, the facts found by the CFI were sufficient to support its conclusion to award P250. The Supreme Court found that the CFI’s decision was based on the valid legal theory that Zaragoza had performed services for the deceased, and the estate had accepted and received certain benefits as a result. Therefore, Zaragoza was entitled to a reasonable compensation for those services, which the CFI determined to be P250. Given the procedural limitation on reviewing evidence, the Court found no error in the CFI’s conclusion based on the facts it had the authority to review.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ordering the estate of Ramon M. de Viademonte to pay Antonio Zaragoza the sum of P250, with interest at 6% per annum from April 17, 1906.