[ G.R. No. 959. July 24, 1903 ] 2 Phil. 347
[ G.R. No. 959. July 24, 1903 ]
JUAN ISMAEL, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL GUANZON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
These documents certify that certain persons appeared before the president, at the request of the appellant, and made the statements contained in the documents. These statements were declarations as to what the persons making them knew concerning the matters in controversy in this action.
Section 381 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows: “The testimony of all witnesses, except such as has been taken in writing in the form of depositions as otherwise provided by law, shall be given on oath in open court orally, and each witness may be orally cross-examined by the adverse party.”
The testimony contained in these documents was not taken in the manner provided for taking depositions in sections 353-376 of said Code. Neither were said documents official or public writings as that phrase is denned in section 299 of the same Code. Neither by the Municipal Code nor by any other law has a president of a municipality now any authority to receive declarations and make a record of them in the manner followed in this case. The documents were properly rejected by the court.
The appellant accepts the established doctrine of this court that the decision of the court below, with the admissions in the pleadings, must contain facts sufficient as a matter af law to support the judgment. (Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec, 1 Off. Gaz., September 10, 1902; [1] Martinez vs Martinez, 1 Off. Gaz., 268 ;[2] Balatbat vs. Tanjutco, 1 Off. Gaz., 405.[3])
As his other assignment of error he claims that under this doctrine the decision should have stated facts showing that the two other defendants, in whose favor judgment was rendered, were not liable to the plaintiff, the release of his codefendants being prejudical to the appellant,
“When a judgment is rendered for the defendant, a simple finding, express or implied, that the complaint is not true, is sufficient. The court finds that the appellant cut and ground the cane. This is a finding that he alone appropriated it to his own use, and necessarily excludes the idea that the other defendants participated in the appropriation. It was a sufficient finding on which to base a judgment in their favor. But it is claimed that the court found, also, that the appellant did these acts under the direction of his codefendants and divided the property with them. This claim is not supported by the record.
The decision states not that this was a fact, but that the appellant alleged it to be a fact.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs of this instance against the appellant.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concur.