GREGORIO ESTRADA, PLAINTIFF, VS. PROCULO NOBLE, DEFENDANT.

This is an action to redeem a parcel of land worth about P3,000.
The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered judgment in favor
of the plaintiff. In the notice of appeal filed on November 22, 1948,
the defendant announced his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court
“inasmuch as the issues involved therein are mostly questions of law.”
The record was accordingly elevated to this Court. Several errors
assigned in the brief for defendant-appellant unquestionably refer to
questions of fact.

Among the cases over which the Supreme Court has exclusive
appellate jurisdiction, are those in which only errors or questions of
law are involved. (Constitution, Art. VIII, sec. 2, Par. 5; sec. 17,
Rep. Act No. 296.) Conformably to this constitutional and statutory
precept, the Rules of Court (sec. 3, Rule 42) provide that “where the
appeal is based purely on questions of lav/, the appellant shall so
state in his notice of appeal, and then no other questions shall be
allowed, and-the” evidence need not be elevated.”

The case at bar is clearly not one falling under the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In the first place, the
appellant expressly stated in his notice of appeal that the issues
involved in the appeal are “mostly questions of law.,” an expression
plainly not synonymous to “only errors or questions of law.” In the
second place, in accordance with his notice of appeal, the appellant
has assigned in his brief several errors involving questions of fact.
This, the appellant has undoubtedly the right to do, because in his
notice of appeal he did not state that the appeal is “based purely on
questions of law,” as provided in section 3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court.

The present appeal, involving questions of fact and of law, falls
within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
(sec. 29, Rep. Act No. 296) and must therefore be certified to said
court, pursuant to section 31 of Republic Act No. 296 which provides
that “all cases which may be erroneously brought to the Supreme Court
or to the Court of Appeals shall be sent to the proper court, which
shall hear the same, as if it had originally brought before it.”

Wherefore, let this case be forwarded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.