G.R. No. L-9749; November 13, 1915
MERCEDES CHINCHILLA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
The plaintiffs, heirs of Eulogio Fernandez Latorre, filed an action to recover damages from defendant Francisco Gonzalez for the alleged unlawful attachment and seizure of 101 head of cattle in 1896. The cattle were attached by Gonzalez as the property of Jose Chinchilla (plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest) during ejectment proceedings between Gonzalez and Chinchilla. A receiver (depositario) was appointed, and the cattle were placed in his custody. The attachment was later dissolved by the trial court due to procedural defects, but before notice of dissolution could be served, all the cattle had either died from disease or were taken by insurrectionary forces.

The plaintiffs claimed that the attached cattle were not Chinchilla’s property but belonged to Latorre, based on a notarial document dated August 23, 1894, wherein Chinchilla acknowledged a debt to Latorre and stipulated payment through the delivery of 70 head of cattle located in Umingan, Nueva Ecija. The plaintiffs asserted that the 101 cattle seized were the 70 cattle mentioned in the document and their natural increase.

The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the stenographic notes of the trial were not transmitted to the Supreme Court as required.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint, given the plaintiffs’ claim that the attached cattle belonged to Latorre and not to Chinchilla.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that it could not review the evidence because the appellants failed to bring the complete stenographic notes of the trial proceedings on appeal, which is necessary for a review of factual findings. The Court is bound by the trial judge’s findings of fact under such circumstances.

On the merits, based on the trial court’s findings which the Supreme Court adopted, the notarial document relied upon by the plaintiffs did not constitute an executed sale transferring title of the cattle to Latorre, but was merely an executory agreement to sell contingent upon delivery. The evidence was insufficient to prove that: (1) the 70 head of cattle were ever delivered to Latorre, and (2) the 101 cattle attached on the hacienda “Esperanza” were the same cattle (and their increase) referenced in the document concerning cattle in Umingan. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to prove that Latorre was the owner of the attached cattle. Consequently, the defendants could not be held liable for damages arising from the attachment. The dismissal of the complaint was proper.