Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. 5412 February 12, 1910 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. RAMON GARCIA

015 Phil 192:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 5412. February 12, 1910. ]

ANGEL ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMON GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Ramon Garcia, on his own behalf.

Vicente de Vera, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; REVIEW. — A motion for a new trial merely upon the ground that the decision is contrary to law is not based upon any of the grounds specified in section 497 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure; it raises no question as to the sufficiency of the proofs to sustain the decision and does not permit a review of the evidence by this court.

2. ID.; SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT; EVIDENCE NEED NOT BE PLEADED. — In an action of foreclosure it is not necessary to detail every fact required by law to make the mortgage valid. An allegation that the defendant executed the mortgage and delivered it to the plaintiff is sufficient. Evidentiary facts need not be set up, but at the trial every fact essential to the validity and enforceability of the mortgage must be proved.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


This was an action commenced to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant to the plaintiff’s assignor. The trial of the cause was set for the 22d day October, 1908. The defendant, who appeared and answered in person, was sick on that day and notified the court of his inability to be present. The court thereupon adjourned the trial of the cause to the 2d day of November following. A notice of the adjournment, giving the date to which the cause had been continued, was sent to the defendant. He claims that he did not receive it until after the day to which the cause was adjourned for trial. As a result a default was taken against the defendant, the usual proceedings were had before the court, and on the 6th day of November the usual judgment of foreclosure in the cause was rendered.

The defendant upon receiving notice of the rendition and entry of the judgment made the following motion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The defendant in the above entitled cause appears and respectfully shows that he asks upon reasons of justice a new trial upon the following ground: For the reason that I have been the victim of an accident which ordinary prudence would not have been able to avoid, having been sick at the time of the trial and having for that reason been prejudiced in my legal rights in the case; therefore, the judgment is contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

In order to determine whether or not this court can review the evidence in this case, it is necessary to decide whether the ground upon which the above motion for a new trial is based is a sufficient ground under section 497, 1 subdivision 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. That subdivision reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. If the excepting party filed a motion in the Court of First Instance for a new trial, upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision, and the judge overruled said motion, and due exception was taken to his overruling the same, the Supreme Court may review the evidence and make such findings upon the facts by a preponderance of the evidence, and render such final judgment, as justice and equity may require. But, if the Supreme Court shall be of the opinion that this exception is frivolous and not made in good faith, it may impose double or treble additional costs upon the excepting party, and may order them to be paid by the counsel prosecuting the bill of exceptions, if in its opinion justice so requires."cralaw virtua1aw library

Having in mind the provisions of that section, we are of the opinion that the motion is not sufficient to permit this court to review the evidence. Said motion is not based upon any of the grounds specified in said section. A motion for a new trial upon the ground that the decision is contrary to law raises no question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision.

The court in deciding the case said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At the trial of the case, the defendant not having appeared at the time fixed by the court and the plaintiff having proved the allegations of his complaint, which were denied by the answer, by means of documentary proofs, Exhibit A, Exhibit Cause No. 45, relating to the guardianship of the children of F. Suarez, as to the payment to D. Angel Ortiz by the defendant of the sum of four hundred and ninety-five pesos and thirty-three centavos (P495.33) and the interest at 10 per cent annually from the 17th day of November, 1906, to the time of its payment, with the costs of the present trial. — It is ordered that the defendant deposit the sum above named in the clerk’s office of this court, etc."cralaw virtua1aw library

The part of the decision above quoted contains all of the findings of fact.

The second question in this case is whether or not such findings are sufficient to support the decision. The reference to Exhibit A in the decision, which Exhibit A is the mortgage being foreclosed, is not sufficient to make that mortgage a part of the decision. We may not, therefore, examine said mortgage upon the theory that such reference incorporated it into the decision so as to become an integral part thereof. Such mortgage could easily have been made a part of the decision if appropriate words for that purpose had been used. Such mortgage is not before us.

The only finding of fact contained in the decision is the statement that the facts alleged in the complaint were proved. The weight of authority seems to be that the findings of the court may refer to the pleadings for the facts found if such reference is sufficiently distinct and if the facts are sufficiently stated in the pleadings. (McEwen v. Johnson, 7 Cal., 258; Breeze v. Doyle, 19 Cal., 101; Osment v. McElrath, 68 Cal., 466; Knudson v. Curley, 30 Minn., 433; School District No. 73 v. Wrabeck, 31 Minn., 77; Downer v. Sexton, 17 Wis., 29; Badger v. Daenieke, 56 Wis., 678; McFadden v. Friendly, 9 Mich., 222; Pollock v. Pollock, 71 N. Y., 137.)

The third question to be decided is whether the facts in the complaint are sufficiently stated; in other words, whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"First. That the plaintiff, D. Angel Ortiz, is of full age and a resident of Manila, P. I., and is represented in this Province of Sorsogon, P. I., by D. Eduardo Roteache, of full age and a resident of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, P. I.

"Second. That the defendant, Ramon Garcia, is of full age and a resident of the municipality of Bacon, Sorsogon, P. I.

"Third. That the defendant is indebted to the widow and daughters of F. Suarez in the sum of four hundred and ninety-five pesos and thirty-three centavos Philippine currency (P495.33), with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the 17th day of November, 1906, with a mortgage of a house, with its corresponding lot, described as follows: (Here follows a description of the land.)

"Fourth. That the said debt and mortgage have been transferred by the widow and children of F. Suarez to the plaintiff, D. Angel Ortiz.

"Fifth. That said mortgage by its terms was to become due on or before one year and six months from the 17th day of November, 1906.

"Sixth. That said mortgage became due on the 17th day of May, 1908, without the plaintiff having been paid said sum of four hundred and ninety-five pesos and thirty-three centavos, Philippine currency (P495.33) or the interest at 10 per cent from the 17th day of November, 1906."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are of the opinion that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is not required in an action of foreclosure to state in detail every fact required by law to make the mortgage valid. The allegation a mortgage upon specified property is a sufficient allegation to be done by either party thereto to make that mortgage valid. It is not necessary to allege evidentiary facts. Only ultimate facts should be pleaded. On the trial it is necessary, of course, to prove every fact required to make the mortgage valid and enforceable. We conclude, therefore, that the finding of the court that the facts stated in the complaint had been proved is a sufficient finding of the facts, and as such is adequate to support the decision.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed with costs against the Appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Amended by Act No. 1596.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5155 February 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GABRIEL DIAZ

    015 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 5312 February 2, 1910 - ENRIQUE MENDIOLA v. SIMEON A. VILLA

    015 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5160 February 3, 1910 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. RAFAEL MOLINA Y SALVADOR

    015 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 5623 February 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FELICIANO

    015 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 5624 February 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO FELICIANO

    015 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 4150 February 10, 1910 - FELIX DE LOS SANTOS v. AGUSTINA JARRA

    015 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 5025 February 10, 1910 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. CATALINA SOLIS

    015 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 5097 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATE v. PEDRO EDUARDO

    015 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 5188 February 10, 1910 - LINO ALINDOGAN v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    015 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 5197 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GENATO

    015 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 5337 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAGUN

    015 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 5390 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL M.A DE TORO

    015 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 5565 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ALEXANDER McCORMICK

    015 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 5588 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BUGARIN

    015 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 5412 February 12, 1910 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. RAMON GARCIA

    015 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 5418 February 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIO TANEDO

    015 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 3983 February 15, 1910 - SALVADOR OCAMPO v. TOMAS CABAÑGIS

    015 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 4950 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO ALCANTARA

    015 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 5219 February 15, 1910 - JOSE McMICKING v. PEDRO MARTINEZ

    015 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 5566 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS MORO

    015 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 5593 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LARIOSA

    015 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 3821 February 16, 1910 - LUCIA PEREZ v. DOMINGO CORTES

    015 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 5193 February 16, 1910 - FERNANDO FERRER v. DOROTEA DIAZ

    015 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 5252 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MALIGALIG

    015 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 5266 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO ABANTO

    015 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 5516 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO SAMEA

    015 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4320 February 10, 1910 - FRANCISCA PALET Y DE YEBRA v. ALDECOA & CO.

    015 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 5168 February 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES MORALES

    015 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 5496 February 19, 1910 - MERCEDES MARTINEZ Y FERNANDEZ v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    015 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 5161 February 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIKE BEECHAM

    015 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 5577 February 21, 1910 - J. W. MEYERS v. WILLIAM THEIN

    015 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 5359 February 23, 1910 - JOSE COJUANGCO v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    015 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 5439 February 23, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO SALAZAR

    015 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 5162 February 26, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIKE BEECHAM

    015 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 5319 February 26, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SABAS BAOIT

    015 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 5478 February 26, 1910 - SERAFIN BELARMINO v. MIGUEL BAQUIZAL

    015 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. 5461 February 28, 1910 - PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

    015 Phil 345