G.R. No. L-5708
CIRIACO TUMACDER, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE NUEVA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
August 30, 1910

FACTS:
Ciriaco Tumacder (plaintiff-appellant) filed a complaint seeking a permanent injunction against Jose Nueva, et al. (defendants-appellees). Tumacder alleged that he was the possessor under title of ownership of a lot in Hatba, Bacarra, and that the defendants began excavating a ditch on his lot, causing him serious detriment. He prayed for the defendants to close the openings, abstain perpetually from such acts, and pay damages.

The defendants denied Tumacder’s claim of ownership, asserting that the land belonged to spouses Andres Lazo and Marcela Tamano, who purchased it from former owners, including Exequiel Tumacder (Ciriaco’s father). The defendants claimed they were hired by Lazo to open the ditch to convert the land into a rice plantation and that Lazo had notified tenants, including Ciriaco, to relocate their houses. They alleged that Ciriaco was the only one who refused and was usurping the land.

The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte found that Andres Lazo and his wife acquired the land from various owners, including the plaintiff’s father. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff had no right to the property and denied the permanent injunction, taxing costs against Tumacder. Tumacder appealed, but no motion for a new trial was filed in the lower court.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the trial court when no motion for a new trial was filed in the first instance.
2. Whether the plaintiff-appellant Ciriaco Tumacder was entitled to a permanent injunction to prevent the excavation of a ditch on the disputed land.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

1. The Court reiterated the established doctrine that when a motion for a new trial has not been made in the first instance, the Supreme Court is bound to accept the statement of facts as proven in the judgment appealed from. The Court has no jurisdiction to review the facts or the evidence adduced at trial but is only called upon to resolve questions of law.
2. Based on the unreviewable factual finding of the trial court, Andres Lazo and his wife acquired the land, including from the plaintiff’s father, Exequiel Tumacder. Therefore, the plaintiff, Ciriaco Tumacder, had no right to the property. Section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a final injunction is granted only if the plaintiff is “entitled to an injunction perpetually restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of.” Since the plaintiff was found to have no right to the land, he was not entitled to object to the acts of the defendants, who were acting under the instruction of the true owners.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s denial of the permanent injunction was in accordance with the law. The judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.