[ CA-G.R. No. 601. March 20, 1946 ] 76 Phil 315
EN BANC
[ CA-G.R. No. 601. March 20, 1946 ]
PETRA GATMAITAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MODESTO J. PASCUAL, DEFENDANT AND APPELANT. RESOLUTION
PARAS, J.:
On October 27, 1942, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered a decision the dispositive part of which reads as follows:
“Por todo lo expuesto, el juzgado falla el asunto condenando al demandado a restituir inmediatamente a la demandante la porcion de terreno descrita en el segundo parrafo de la demanda y delimilada con lapiz rojo en el croquis, Exhibit A, a pagar a la demandante la suma de P300 como gastos calculados para el terraplen del terreno en cuestion y mas la suma de P10 anuales desde el 1”. de enero de 1937 hasta la restitucion de la posesion de la propiedad, y mas las costas del juicio."
The Court of Appeals affirmed said decision in toto. Leave was granted to the appellant to file a motion for reconsideration; but it is now contended that this cannot be done without a new trial because, in addition to the question of law, some facts are disputed and this court, taking the place of the Court of Appeals, will not be able to pass upon said motion without the oral evidence which had been lost or destroyed.
Upon a re-examination of the entire record, including that just received from the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, we find, however, that the brief for the appellant admits that the portion of land in litigation is really part and parcel of that belonging to the appellee. His statement is as follows:
“El 18 de septiembre de 1936 Petra Gatmaitan vendio Una parcela de terreno de 59,015 m. c. por la suraa de P3,300 a favor de Modesto Pascual. Este tomo inmediatamente posesion de dicha parcela, pero, al hacerlo, llego a incruir una poreion de otro terreno de Petra Gatmaitan. Esta porcion de terreno en cuestion constituye un saliente irregular incrustrada en el extremo sureste de la parcela vendida a Modesto Pascual entre las lineas 36, 37, 38, 39 y 40 de dicha parcela.”
There is consequently no controversy between the parties as to the fundamental issue in this case. Moreover, the appellant’s brief already quotes the pertinent testimony in his favor which, in our opinion, does not, and cannot, alter the decision of the trial court.
The only remaining question raised on appeal is the admissibility of the supplemental answer filed by the appellant after the case was decided by the court of first instance, in conjunction with his motion for a new trial, wherein it is alleged that an easement has been established in favor of the appellant on that portion of land admittedly pertaining to the appellee. This is purely a question of law which we can, and hereby, decide now against the appellant, because the new allegation was not supported by affidavits of merit as required by section 2 of Rule of Court No. 37, and, not being in fact new matter, should have been set up in the answer and proved at the trial.
Setting aside our .resolution of November 21, 1945, ordering the “holding of a new trial by the court of origin in the event that the evidence cannot be reconstituted,” we hereby declare this case duly reconstituted for all legal purposes and subject to the conclusions hereinabove set forth. So ordered.
Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Jaranilla, De Joya, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, and Briones, JJ., concur.