In a proceeding for the registration of land, begun in the
Philippine Court of Land Registration and appealed to the Supreme
Court of the Islands, where the former court decreed registration
of a part of the land to a petitioner claiming all under a mortgage
and foreclosure, but refused registration of the rest upon the
ground that it was not shown to have been included in the mortgage,
and where the latter court, finding as a fact that all was so
included, modified the judgment so as to decree that all should be
registered
held that the last mentioned judgment was
properly reviewable by writ of error, and, the case being before
this Court upon such writ, an appeal which was also taken must be
dismissed.
Upon writ of error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands, in a case which was decided upon issues of
fact, this
Page 245 U. S. 87
Court will not reconsider the conclusions of the court below
which find support in the record.
Section 4 of the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726,
does not abolish the distinction between writs of error and
appeals, but only requires that the party seeking review shall have
it in the appropriate way notwithstanding a mistake in his choice
of proceeding.
The Court is not disposed to disturb the judgment of the Supreme
Court of the Philippine Islands in this case denying the right of a
mortgagor to redeem after foreclosure and sale, the rule announced
by the court below being derived from a construction of laws
applicable in the Islands.
Affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by MR. JUSTICE
DAY.
In this case, submitted upon motion to dismiss or affirm, the
present appellee and defendant in error, herein called the Company,
made application in the Philippine Court of Land Registration for
registration of certain property under the Torrens System. As
described and claimed by the Company, the hacienda contained 611
hectares, 33 ares, and 82 centares.
The case was twice in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
After its first judgment, that court granted a rehearing and
ordered a new trial, and we are concerned now with the writ of
error and appeal to this Court from the second judgment of the
Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Page 245 U. S. 88
The Supreme Court states that, so far as Romana Gauzon was
concerned, the hacienda was made up of two portions, one consisting
of 465 hectares, 33 ares and 82 centares, by royal grant, while the
remaining portion was made up of 146 hectares obtained from other
sources. Romana Gauzon had mortgaged the hacienda, and the same was
bought by the Company at sheriff's sale; some time thereafter, it
made the application for registration.
On the retrial, after the first judgment of the Supreme Court,
Romana Gauzon claimed to be the owner of the 146 hectares, alleging
that they were not included in the mortgage. The Court of Land
Registration refused registration of the 146 hectares. That court
held that, while Romana Ganzon had not shown herself to be the
owner of the 146 hectares, the Company had not clearly demonstrated
that it was the owner thereof.
The Supreme Court, in the judgment now under review, held that
the Company had, as between itself and Romana Gauzon, shown title
to the 146 hectares, and modified the judgment of the Court of Land
Registration so as to decree the registration of all the land
described in the application. This judgment evidently proceeded
upon the determination of questions of fact.
The writ of error was the proper method by which to review the
judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Carino v.
Insular Government, 212 U. S. 449;
Tiglao v. Insular Government, 215 U.
S. 410;
Jover y Costas v. Insular Government,
221 U. S. 623. The
case being properly here upon writ of error, the appeal must be
dismissed. Upon such writ, the case having been decided upon issues
of fact, this Court will not reconsider the conclusions of the
lower court which find support in the record in reaching its
judgment.
Whether § 4 of the act of September 6, 1916, 39 Stat. 726,
applies to this action in view of the fact that the appeal and writ
of error were taken December 5, 1916,
Page 245 U. S. 89
it is unnecessary to decide, as the section does not change the
result. Section 4 provides that the reviewing court shall not
dismiss a writ of error because an appeal should have been taken,
or dismiss an appeal because a writ of error should have been sued
out, but shall disregard such mistakes and take the action
appropriate if the proper appellate procedure had been followed.
This section does not abolish the distinction between writs of
error and appeals, but only requires that the party seeking review
shall have it in the appropriate way, notwithstanding a mistake in
choosing the mode of review.
Upon petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court, the plaintiff
in error contended that she should have been allowed the right of
redemption. Upon that question, the court adhered to its first
judgment denying the right, and affirmed the doctrine announced in
Benedicto v. Yulo, 26 Phil. 160. We are not disposed to
disturb this judgment of the Supreme Court construing local laws
and announcing a rule applicable in the Islands.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippines is
Affirmed.
