October 1905 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > October 1905 Decisions >
G.R. No. 1595 October 28, 1905 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA
005 Phil 182:
005 Phil 182:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 1595. October 28, 1905. ]
CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUANA VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Chicote, Miranda & Sierra, for Appellant.
Palma, Gerona & Mercado, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, WHAT MAY BE INCLUDED. — Appellants asking that a decision of the lower court be annulled or modified because of the admission or rejection of certain documentary evidence should make such documentary evidence a part of the bill of exceptions, whether such document was admitted in evidence by the lower court or not, in order that this court may have before it all of the facts presented to the lower court.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J. :
This was an action by the plaintiff to recover possession of a parcel of land in the city of Manila occupied by the defendant.
During the trial in the court below the plaintiff offered certain documents, showing her title to the land in question. The defendant introduced several witnesses for the purpose of showing that she had been in possession of the land in question since 1858 and that she went into possession of said parcel of land by virtue of a certain document showing that she had purchased said land of one German Bate. This document was offered in evidence as proof of defendant’s title to said parcel of land, which document, however, the court refused to admit in evidence, upon the ground that the said document only referred to defendant’s right to the house erected upon said parcel of land. The defendant claimed that said document showed her right to the possession not only of the house, but the said parcel of land as well.
The defendant duly excepted to this ruling of the court and assigns such ruling as an error in this court. The alleged document does not appear here as a part of the bill of exceptions, the defendant evidently believing that because the court refused the admission of the same as evidence in the court below that she had no authority to make the same a part of the bill of exceptions. The document should have been attached to the record and made a part of the bill of exceptions.
By reason of the fact that the defendant claims that said document clearly shows her title to the parcel of land in question and by reason of the fact that said document is not here, we are unable to decide what bearing said document has upon the question of the right of possession to said parcel of land. We are of the opinion that the inferior court committed an error in refusing to admit said document in evidence as proof, and therefore hereby revoke the sentence of the inferior court and order that after the expiration of twenty days judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and said cause be returned to that court for trial de novo. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.
Willard, J., did not sit in this case.
During the trial in the court below the plaintiff offered certain documents, showing her title to the land in question. The defendant introduced several witnesses for the purpose of showing that she had been in possession of the land in question since 1858 and that she went into possession of said parcel of land by virtue of a certain document showing that she had purchased said land of one German Bate. This document was offered in evidence as proof of defendant’s title to said parcel of land, which document, however, the court refused to admit in evidence, upon the ground that the said document only referred to defendant’s right to the house erected upon said parcel of land. The defendant claimed that said document showed her right to the possession not only of the house, but the said parcel of land as well.
The defendant duly excepted to this ruling of the court and assigns such ruling as an error in this court. The alleged document does not appear here as a part of the bill of exceptions, the defendant evidently believing that because the court refused the admission of the same as evidence in the court below that she had no authority to make the same a part of the bill of exceptions. The document should have been attached to the record and made a part of the bill of exceptions.
By reason of the fact that the defendant claims that said document clearly shows her title to the parcel of land in question and by reason of the fact that said document is not here, we are unable to decide what bearing said document has upon the question of the right of possession to said parcel of land. We are of the opinion that the inferior court committed an error in refusing to admit said document in evidence as proof, and therefore hereby revoke the sentence of the inferior court and order that after the expiration of twenty days judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and said cause be returned to that court for trial de novo. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.
Willard, J., did not sit in this case.
