July 1962 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > July 1962 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-14990 July 31, 1962 - FLORENCIA PICCIO VDA. DE YUSAY, ET AL. v. LILIA POLI YUSAY-GONZALES:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-14990. July 31, 1962.]
FLORENCIA PICCIO VDA. DE YUSAY, TERESITA YUSAY, MARILOU YUSAY DE HORTILLAS and JOSELITO P. YUSAY, surviving heirs substituting for the late JOSE YUSAY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LILIA POLI YUSAY-GONZALES, Defendant-Appellee.
San Juan, Africa & Benedicto, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Ramon A. Gonzales, for Defendant-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. JUDICIARY ACT; SUPREME COURT; APPELLATE JURISDICTION; CASE AT BAR. — The case at bar does not fall within the exception of paragraph 5, section 17, of Republic Act No. 296, as amended because the evidence in each case is different. The case should have been appealed therefore to the Court of Appeals and not to the Supreme Court since the present appeal involves only the sum of P25,000 and there is no showing that only questions of law are raised. Case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for judgment.
R E S O L U T I O N
PADILLA, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, the dispositive part of which is —
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS the Court renders judgment:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In Civil Case No. 4091, (1) ordering the complaint dismissed, with costs taxed against the plaintiffs; (2) ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendant Lilia Yusay the sum of P20,000, with legal interests from the date of filing of the complaint, as damages; and (3) ordering the plaintiffs to pay P5,000 to defendant’s attorney as part of his fees; and
In Civil Case No. 4031, ordering the complaint and counterclaim dismissed, without costs.
Civil Case No. 4031 is an action brought by Lilia Yusay against the late José Yusay, whose widow and heirs were substituted for him, for damages in the total sum of P50,000 for an attempt by the latter to deprive the former of her share in the estate of her deceased father Matias Yusay and for libel.
Civil Case No. 4091 is an action brought by the late José Yusay, who was substituted by his widow and heirs, mainly to annul an order of the same Court dated 14 August 1951 that had declared the defendant Lilia Yusay an acknowledged natural child of the late Matias Yusay. The defendant prays in her answer for the dismissal of the complaint, actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees in the total sum of P180,000 and costs.
From the dismissal of her complaint in civil case No. 4031 Lilia Yusay has not appealed.
The previous case of Yusay v. Yusay-Gonzales, G.R. No. L-11378, decided on 21 August 1959, involving the same and identical parties, does not make the present case fall within the exception of paragraph 5, section 17, of Republic Act No. 296, as amended, which provides that—
. . . The Supreme Court shall likewise have exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals in civil cases, even though the value in controversy, exclusive of interest and cost, is two hundred thousand pesos or less, when the evidence involved in said cases is the same as the evidence submitted in an appealed civil case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided herein.
because the evidence in each case is different. In its order on 16 November 1956 the trial court says:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
There is no question that, in the case pending appeal before the Supreme Court (L-11378), there is identity of parties but certainly there is no identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. The issue in the present case is whether or not the order of the Court, declared Lilia Yusay as an acknowledged natural child of the late Matias Yusay, should be annulled on the ground of fraud while the issue in the case pending before the Supreme Court is whether or not the defendant Lilia Yusay should receive only 50 hectares as her share in the inheritance or more. (p. 557, record on appeal.)
The order entered on 26 July 1958 by the trial court forwarding the appeal to this Court is an error, because the plaintiffs in their notice of appeal were appealing to the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. (pp. 605-607, record on appeal). Thus, on page 606 of the Record on Appeal, they pray "that the said appeal bond and record on appeal be approved, certified and forwarded to the Honorable Court of Appeals, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The amount involved in the present appeal is only P25,000. There is no showing that only questions of law are raised.
Such being the case, pursuant to section 31, in connection with sections 17 and 29, of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 2613, the appeal taken in this case should be, as is, certified to the Court of Appeals for determination and judgment.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., took on part.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS the Court renders judgment:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In Civil Case No. 4091, (1) ordering the complaint dismissed, with costs taxed against the plaintiffs; (2) ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendant Lilia Yusay the sum of P20,000, with legal interests from the date of filing of the complaint, as damages; and (3) ordering the plaintiffs to pay P5,000 to defendant’s attorney as part of his fees; and
In Civil Case No. 4031, ordering the complaint and counterclaim dismissed, without costs.
Civil Case No. 4031 is an action brought by Lilia Yusay against the late José Yusay, whose widow and heirs were substituted for him, for damages in the total sum of P50,000 for an attempt by the latter to deprive the former of her share in the estate of her deceased father Matias Yusay and for libel.
Civil Case No. 4091 is an action brought by the late José Yusay, who was substituted by his widow and heirs, mainly to annul an order of the same Court dated 14 August 1951 that had declared the defendant Lilia Yusay an acknowledged natural child of the late Matias Yusay. The defendant prays in her answer for the dismissal of the complaint, actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees in the total sum of P180,000 and costs.
From the dismissal of her complaint in civil case No. 4031 Lilia Yusay has not appealed.
The previous case of Yusay v. Yusay-Gonzales, G.R. No. L-11378, decided on 21 August 1959, involving the same and identical parties, does not make the present case fall within the exception of paragraph 5, section 17, of Republic Act No. 296, as amended, which provides that—
. . . The Supreme Court shall likewise have exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals in civil cases, even though the value in controversy, exclusive of interest and cost, is two hundred thousand pesos or less, when the evidence involved in said cases is the same as the evidence submitted in an appealed civil case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided herein.
because the evidence in each case is different. In its order on 16 November 1956 the trial court says:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
There is no question that, in the case pending appeal before the Supreme Court (L-11378), there is identity of parties but certainly there is no identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. The issue in the present case is whether or not the order of the Court, declared Lilia Yusay as an acknowledged natural child of the late Matias Yusay, should be annulled on the ground of fraud while the issue in the case pending before the Supreme Court is whether or not the defendant Lilia Yusay should receive only 50 hectares as her share in the inheritance or more. (p. 557, record on appeal.)
The order entered on 26 July 1958 by the trial court forwarding the appeal to this Court is an error, because the plaintiffs in their notice of appeal were appealing to the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. (pp. 605-607, record on appeal). Thus, on page 606 of the Record on Appeal, they pray "that the said appeal bond and record on appeal be approved, certified and forwarded to the Honorable Court of Appeals, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The amount involved in the present appeal is only P25,000. There is no showing that only questions of law are raised.
Such being the case, pursuant to section 31, in connection with sections 17 and 29, of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 2613, the appeal taken in this case should be, as is, certified to the Court of Appeals for determination and judgment.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., took on part.
