ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1904 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 982 January 4, 1904 - LIM-JUCO v. LIM-YAP

    003 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 1367 January 4, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PACIFICO GONZAGA

    003 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 1534 January 4, 1904 - FORTUNATO RICAMORA v. GRANT T. TRENT

    003 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 1406 January 6, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ROSCOE C. COX

    003 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 1272 January 11, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. BALDOMERO NAVARRO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 1180 January 13, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ROSALIA ANACLETO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 1298 January 14, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SINGUIMTO

    003 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 1433 January 14, 1904 - CO-BOO v. LIM-TIAN

    003 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 1443 January 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ALFONSO ABISON, ET AL.

    003 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 1380 January 18, 1904 - CONSOLACION MIJARES v. DELFINA NERY, ET AL.

    003 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 1697 January 18, 1904 - MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SANTA ROSA v. LA LAGUNA

    003 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 1267 January 19, 1904 - CO-TIANGCO v. TO-JAMCO

    003 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 1344 January 19, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN TRONO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 1390 January 19, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL CERVANTES

    003 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 1376 January 21, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. J. VALENTINE KARELSEN

    003 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 555 January 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON GIMENO

    003 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. 1304 January 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PETRONILO DONOSO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 1275 January 23, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. MELENCIO TUBIG

    003 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 1408 January 25, 1904 - MACARIO DE LEON v. ANASTASIO NAVAL

    003 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 1431 January 27, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON PUNSALAN

    003 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 1401 January 27, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN BARE ET AL.

    003 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 1354 January 30, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON DE PADUA

    003 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 1391 January 30, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. LEONCIO PAPA

    003 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 1436 January 30, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN TRILLANES

    003 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 1723 January 30, 1904 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. JAMES J. PETERSON

    003 Phil 276

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 1408   January 25, 1904 - MACARIO DE LEON v. ANASTASIO NAVAL<br /><br />003 Phil 258

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 1408. January 25, 1904. ]

    MACARIO DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANASTASIO NAVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

    Mariano Monroy, for Appellant.

    Felipe G. Calderon, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. APPELLATE PROCEDURE; FINDINGS OF FACT; NEW TRIAL; JURISDICTION OF APPELLATE COURT. — As a general rule the Supreme Court sits to correct error, and unless a case falls within the exceptions established by section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or there has been a motion for a new trial on the grounds therein designated, the evidence will not be reviewed by the appellate court or the findings of the trial judge disturbed.


    D E C I S I O N


    MAPA, J. :


    All the questions raised by the appellant in his brief concern the weight given by the judge below to the evidence introduced by the parties at the trial. Even the citation of article 1280 of the Civil Code in the assignment of errors attached to the brief is made not for the purpose of discussing the validity or legal effect of the contract of loan upon which the action is based — and consequently this aspect of the case can not be dealt with in our decision — but for the sole and exclusive purpose of showing the insufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that such a loan was ever made.

    In summing up his contentions the appellant says: "As the evidence is not of sufficient weight to prove the fact upon which the evidence was offered, the conclusion of the court below that the evidence shows that the defendant is liable for an amount for which judgment was rendered against him is without legal foundation."cralaw virtua1aw library

    No motion having been made for a new trial in the court below and the case not falling within any of the other exceptions expressly established in section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is useless to raise question such as those presented by the appellant, for the law does not give us authority to review the evidence, and the findings of the court below are therefore final and irrevocable, even though they may have been erroneous or unjust.

    The jurisdiction of this court in civil case submitted to it for its decision by a bill of exceptions is, as a general rule, limited to deciding questions of law arising from the facts found by the court below and which are expressly presented by the bill of exceptions, it being assumed, for the purpose of the discussion, that the facts are as found. It is only as an exception, and this solely in the cases above mentioned, that the evidence can be reviewed by the appellate court. With the exception of these cases it is the exclusive province of the court below to weigh the evidence and make findings as to the facts established thereby. His judgment in this respect is absolute and final.

    The court below in its decision finds as a fact that the plaintiff delivered 1,500 pesos to the defendant as a loan, and that the evidence shows that the defendant still owes the plaintiff the sum of 1,125 pesos demanded in the complaint.

    Taking these facts for granted, the obligation of the defendant to pay the said sum to the plaintiff is self-evident. (Civil Code, art. 1753.) The decision of the court below by which the judgment is ordered against the defendant for that amount is therefore without error.

    For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. Judgment will be entered accordingly twenty days after the date of the filing of this decision and the case remanded to the trial court. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Willard, McDonough and Johnson, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 1408   January 25, 1904 - MACARIO DE LEON v. ANASTASIO NAVAL<br /><br />003 Phil 258


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED