GR L 4381; (August, 1908) (Digest)
MANUEL LOPEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. RAMON N. OROZCO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
August 4, 1908
FACTS: The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Occidental Negros rendered a decision on December 28, 1906, finding that certain properties a parcel of land in Nacab and a house in Talisay belonged to plaintiff Manuel Lopez, and a parcel of land in Alasigan belonged to plaintiff Rosendo Hernaez. These properties had been levied upon and sold at auction by the sheriff, despite the plaintiffs’ protests, under a writ of execution in Civil Case of Ramon N. Orozco vs. Mateo Hernaez.
On December 29, 1906, the defendants excepted to the CFI’s decision. On the same day, defendant Orozco moved for a new trial, arguing the decision was not in accordance with the weight of evidence, and prayed for his exception to be noted for appeal if the motion were denied. On January 5, 1907, Orozco filed a bill of exceptions. However, the motion for a new trial did not appear to have been overruled, and no corresponding exception was taken to such overruling.
The appellants raised four assignments of error before the Supreme Court: (1) delay in judgment by the CFI, (2) error in accepting plaintiffs’ ownership claims over the properties, (3) error in the CFI taking cognizance of what was allegedly a wrongful entry and detainer case within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and (4) error in considering conflicting affidavits from Rosendo Hernaez regarding acquisition of the Alasigan property.
ISSUE: Can the Supreme Court review the evidence presented in the Court of First Instance when the motion for a new trial filed by the appellant was not formally overruled and no exception was taken to such overruling?
RULING: No. The Supreme Court cannot review the evidence in this case.
According to Section 497, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court may only review the evidence, make findings on facts, and render final judgment if the excepting party files a motion for a new trial in the Court of First Instance, the judge overrules said motion, and due exception is taken to that overruling. In the present case, the motion for a new trial was filed, but it does not appear to have been overruled, and no corresponding exception was taken. Therefore, the Supreme Court is procedurally barred from reviewing the evidence and can only determine questions of law raised in the bill of exceptions.
Applying this principle:
The first assigned error (delay in judgment) was deemed unworthy of consideration.
The second and fourth assigned errors (challenging the factual findings of ownership and conflicting affidavits) are based on facts that cannot be reviewed due to the procedural defect.
* The third assigned error (regarding jurisdiction over wrongful entry and detainer) cannot be considered because it was not raised in the first instance.
Consequently, the Supreme Court was constrained to accept the factual findings of the CFI. Based on these undisturbed findings that Manuel Lopez acquired the Nacab land and Talisay house through sale, and Rosendo Hernaez owned the Alasigan land the CFI’s conclusions of ownership were correctly deduced.
Therefore, the judgment appealed from was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.