G.R. No. 2036. September 18, 1905

Please log in to request a case brief.

5 Phil. 29

[ G.R. No. 2036. September 18, 1905 ]

MARIA MANONA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO OBLERO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N



WILLARD, J.:

This action was commenced on the 13th of March, 1902, before a
justice of the peace of the Province of Pangasinan, who entered
judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the 22d day of March, 1902. The
defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance. In that court the
plaintiff relied upon the complaint which she had filed before the
justice of the peace, and the defendant presented a new answer to that
complaint. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and
defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied. He excepted to the
order denying the motion for a new trial, and also to the judgment, and
has brought this case here by bill of exceptions.

The bill of exceptions purports to contain all the evidence
presented at the trial in the Court of First Instance, but, as a matter
of fact, none of the evidence is found in the bill of exceptions, and
none of it has been returned to this court. The appellant appears to
claim in his brief that the appellee consented to the omission of the
evidence by stating that she had no objection to the allowance by the
court of the bill of exceptions. This statement, however, can not be
considered as such an agreement. The proofs not being here, we can not
consider the points made by the appellant to the effect that the
evidence in the case showed that he was the owner and entitled to the
possession of the property in dispute.

The appellant assigns as error the fact that the Court of First
Instance decided the case upon the evidence presented before the
justice of the peace. The record does not support this claim.It is
stated in the judgment of the Court of First Instance that that
judgment was rendered after hearing the witnesses of each party, and the arguments of counsel.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellant, and after the expiration of twenty days
judgment should be entered in accordance herewith, and the cause
remanded to the court below for execution of said judgment.

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






Date created: April 25, 2014




Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post
Filter
Apply Filters