May 1958 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > May 1958 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA
103 Phil 990:
103 Phil 990:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-11073. May 30, 1958.]
HEIRS OF MELECIO ARCEO, Petitioner, v. ANDRES E. VARELA, Respondent.
Sotero H. Laurel for Appellant.
Vicente Reyes Villavicencio for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. APPEAL AND ERROR; APPELLATE JURISDICTION; AMOUNT INVOLVED LESS THAN FIFTY THOUSAND; APPEAL RAISES QUESTIONS OF FACT. — Where the value of the subject matter of the case is less than P50,000, and the appeal raises questions of fact, the appeal falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. B. L., J.:
This is an appeal by Andres E. Varela from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas in its Cadastral Case No. 50, G.L.R.O. Record No. 1820, adjudging and decreeing the registration of Lot No. 14076 of the Batangas Cadastre in the name of claimants Heirs of Melecio Arceo. The land involved, together with the improvements thereon, appears to have a total assessed value of P1,640.00.
Appellant assigns the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
The trial court erred in holding that ownership of Lot No. 14076 has been proved by the decision in civil case No. 4001, as affirmed in G. R. No. L-3052, promulgated on June 29, 1954.
The trial court erred in holding that possession and ownership of Lot No. 14076 by appellees have been proved by their testimonial and documentary evidence.
The trial court erred in not giving credence to appellant’s testimonial and documentary evidence, and in not decreeing Lot No. 14076 to Appellant.
Considering that the value of the subject-matter of the case is less than P50,000, and the appeal raises questions of fact as shown by the above assignment of errors, the present appeal falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
Wherefore, in accordance with the provisions of sec. 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended, this appeal is ordered certified to the Court of Appeals there to be decided and disposed of in accordance with law.
Paras C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
Appellant assigns the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I
The trial court erred in holding that ownership of Lot No. 14076 has been proved by the decision in civil case No. 4001, as affirmed in G. R. No. L-3052, promulgated on June 29, 1954.
II
The trial court erred in holding that possession and ownership of Lot No. 14076 by appellees have been proved by their testimonial and documentary evidence.
III
The trial court erred in not giving credence to appellant’s testimonial and documentary evidence, and in not decreeing Lot No. 14076 to Appellant.
Considering that the value of the subject-matter of the case is less than P50,000, and the appeal raises questions of fact as shown by the above assignment of errors, the present appeal falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
Wherefore, in accordance with the provisions of sec. 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended, this appeal is ordered certified to the Court of Appeals there to be decided and disposed of in accordance with law.
Paras C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
