July 1905 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > July 1905 Decisions >
G.R. No. 1652 July 26, 1905 - MARIA TONGCO v. SABINO MANIO
004 Phil 609:
004 Phil 609:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 1652. July 26, 1905. ]
MARIA TONGCO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SABINO MANIO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Vicente Foz, for Appellants.
Claro Reyes, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; CONCLUSIONS OF FACT ESTABLISHED IN THE JUDGMENT. — When no motion for a new trial has been made in the court below, the conclusions of fact established in the judgment are conclusive against the parties, and this court can not review the evidence upon which this finding is based.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J. :
Of the several tracts of land described in the complaint this appeal relates to only one, viz, a parcel situated in Catulinan, in the pueblo of Baliuag.
The answer of the defendants alleges that this piece of land had been acquired by Fidela Tiongson, the wife of the defendant Sabino Manio, in payment of a debt which the plaintiff owed to her. The court, in its decision found as a fact that the defendants Sabino Manio and Fidela Tiongson, his wife, had no interest whatever in this property, and that the plaintiff was entitled to be restored to the possession thereof. There was no motion for a new trial made in the court below, and we can not review the evidence upon which this finding was based. It is therefore conclusive against the defendants.
After the case had been brought here by a bill of exceptions, the defendants made a motion that they be allowed to take additional evidence in this court, under the provisions of section 497, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order was made by this court to that effect, a commissioner appointed, and evidence produced before him. We have examined the evidence, which has been returned to this court, and do not see how it can in any way change the result reached by the court below.
The defendants introduced before the commissioner a grant from the Government of a tract of land in Catulinan, but this grant was made not to Fidela Tiongson but to Teodora Tiongson, the wife of the other defendant, Antonio Ramos, and did not describe the property which is described in the complaint.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants. After the expiration of twenty days judgment will be entered in conformity herewith and the case will be returned to the lower court for execution. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.
The answer of the defendants alleges that this piece of land had been acquired by Fidela Tiongson, the wife of the defendant Sabino Manio, in payment of a debt which the plaintiff owed to her. The court, in its decision found as a fact that the defendants Sabino Manio and Fidela Tiongson, his wife, had no interest whatever in this property, and that the plaintiff was entitled to be restored to the possession thereof. There was no motion for a new trial made in the court below, and we can not review the evidence upon which this finding was based. It is therefore conclusive against the defendants.
After the case had been brought here by a bill of exceptions, the defendants made a motion that they be allowed to take additional evidence in this court, under the provisions of section 497, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order was made by this court to that effect, a commissioner appointed, and evidence produced before him. We have examined the evidence, which has been returned to this court, and do not see how it can in any way change the result reached by the court below.
The defendants introduced before the commissioner a grant from the Government of a tract of land in Catulinan, but this grant was made not to Fidela Tiongson but to Teodora Tiongson, the wife of the other defendant, Antonio Ramos, and did not describe the property which is described in the complaint.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants. After the expiration of twenty days judgment will be entered in conformity herewith and the case will be returned to the lower court for execution. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.
