GO BON CHIAT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. PEDRO VALMORIDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

This record is here pursuant to plaintiff’s prayer in the court
below that if “be forwarded to the Hon. Supreme Court, together with all
the evidence oral or documentary in order that the Court may pass upon
the question of law as well as the issues of facts that may be raised in
this appeal.”

It appears that, on Jan. 19, 1950 Go Bon Chiat an administrator
of the estate of the deceased Go Bongco filed a complaint in the court
of first instance of Misamis Oriental, to recover from Pedro Valmorida a
portion of a certain parcel of land in the poblacion of
Balingasag, same province, alleging that Go Bongco was owner of the
whole parcel by virtue of a decision he had obtained in a litigation
against one Go Bianchong alias Go Siogan, and that defendant was
unlawfully detaining a part thereof.

The defendant answered that he had purchased the lot from
Eduardo B. Co, heir of Go Bongco, and that the decision invoked by
plaintiff had never become final, was never executed, and was null and
void.

On March 28 and 29, 1950 trial was had and the plaintiff
presented his testimonial and documentary evidence (p. 8, Record on
Appeal). The next day, the defendant, reserving his right to present
evidence, moved for dismissal of the complaint, because the decision
which plaintiff invoked had been appealed and plaintiff did not prove
that it was affirmed and executed, and also because plaintiff’s evidence
did not sufficiently identify the land he (defendant) possessed with
the lot awarded in the former decision.

Plaintiff replied to the motion. Defendant submitted a
rejoinder.

The Court in a decision dated April 14, 1950, analysing the
evidence, dismissed the case saying in part,

“In this light of the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
the Court is at a loss to conclude: (1) whether the plaintiff is the
real owner of the land in question, (2) whether or not, the decision
appearing in Exhibit B, refers to the land in question in the present
case, (3) whether or not, said decision, Exhibit B, was confirmed,
whether or not, said decision was ever executed, and (5) that Exhibits C
and D, are not clear evidence of the fact that said decision in Civil
Case No. 4438, if it became final, was really executed.”

The plaintiff on May 3, 1950, filed a motion for new trial alleging
excusable mistake or negligence and enclosing the affidavits of three
persons plus some documents purposely to remedy the deficiencies in his
proofs. But the court denied the petition explaining that even with the
additional evidence the right of the plaintiff had not been
sufficiently established. Hence this appeal.

In support of his assignments of error plaintiff extensively
discusses questions of fact, quoting portions of the stenographic notes,
and citing his documentary exhibits. The defendant’s brief meets the
issue of sufficiency of the evidence.

Wherefore, inasmuch as the value of the property in litigation
is only a little over five thousand pesos (p. 2, Record on Appeal) and
factual points are involved, the controversy does not fall within our
appellate power to review and should be referred to the Court of Appeals
in accordance with law. The consequent delay is regrettable, but this
Court can only take action on a case when its turn comes up for
consideration, and we are not at liberty to skip the matter of
jurisdiction. Besides parties are supposed to observe the lines of
demarcation separating the two appellate fields of adjudication in order
that no loss of time shall result from their taking steps in the wrong
direction.

Let the record be sent to the Court of Appeals.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo,
Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J., no part.