Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3415 June 11, 1951
EUFENIO JUSTO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
EUTROPIA C. HERNANDO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
E. L. Peralta for appellants.
Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Office of the Solicitor Jaime de los Angeles for appellee Director of Lands.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
This case was appealed directly to this Court by the appellant for the reason that he is raising only question of law. The appellee in his brief raises question of fact, particularly disputing the finding of the trial court that the lands in question we already private lands, owned by the plaintiff-appellants, at the time of the application for and the issuance of the Free Patent. The question to determined is whether this appeal is to decided in this Court, confining the issue between the parties only to the question of law raised by the appellant, or whether to consider the issue as extending to the question of facts raised by the appellee, in which case, the appeal should be referred to the Court of Appeals.
One view of the case is that inasmuch as the appellee has not appealed from the decision to raise question of fact, neither did he object to the appeal being taken directly to the Supreme Court where only question of law are considered, he has waived his right in this regard. The other view which we favor as more practical and more in accord with justice and equity is that an appellee who obtains a favorable judgment is not called upon to appeal and attack a decision that favors him; neither is he in a position to decide which Court he wants the appeal of the appellant to go to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, until he (appellee) has read the brief of said appellant and praised himself of the issues raised, the arguments adduced, and the chances of having the decision appealed from reversed or modified on those issues and arguments alone. And if an appellee were to play safe in every case and insist that every appeal taken by an appellant on purely questions of law, be taken to the Court of Appeals, where the appellee could, if necessary later raise questions of fact, in order to sustain the judgment, that would imply undue delay, and also much work, should the appellee after reading the brief for appellant decide not to raise question of fact, thereby resulting in the Appeals to then Supreme Court.
In view of the foregoing, because the present appeal involves questions both of law and fact, let the present case be sent to the Court of Appeals for consideration and decision.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
