A suit to recover real estate, like an ordinary action at law,
can only be brought to this Court from the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands by writ of error; it cannot be brought by
appeal.
Where, as in this case, there is no question of law, this Court
cannot, on writ of error, review the finding of the Supreme Court
of the Philippine Islands that the preponderance of contradictory
evidence was on the defendant's side.
Quaere whether, in this case the jurisdictional amount
of $25,000 was involved.
Appeal from and writ of error to review 18 Phil. 600
dismissed.
The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court of
appeals from, and error to, the Supreme Court of the Philippine
Islands, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was brought by the Archbishop of Manila to recover a
square in the municipality of Victoria. The church of the town and
its parish house stand in this square, and they are admitted to be
church property, but the land not occupied by them was declared by
the supreme court to constitute the public square or plaza
Page 226 U. S. 13
of the town, devoted to public uses. The plaintiff brought a
writ of error and appealed. The appeal must be dismissed.
Jover
v. Insular Government, 221 U. S. 623,
221 U. S. 635;
Carino v. Insular Government, 212 U.
S. 449,
212 U. S. 456.
The suit is like an ordinary action at law, and can be brought to
this Court only by writ of error, as was done in
Santos v.
Roman Catholic Church, 212 U. S. 463, and
Ker v. Couden, 223 U. S. 268.
There is a motion to dismiss the writ of error also, on the
ground that the value of the real estate in controversy does not
exceed $25,000. Affidavits to that effect are offered, and the
order allowing the writ purports to do so on affidavits of the
plaintiff and two others,
"notwithstanding the fact that, by admission of counsel for
plaintiff, it appears that the value of the parcel of land for
which judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant municipality,
exclusive of the value of the adjoining parcel of land with the
church and convent situated thereon, title to which is recognized
to be in the plaintiff, and damages thereto resulting from the
aforesaid judgment, does not exceed $25,000."
We doubt whether the affidavits do not imply the same admission,
and whether the action should not be dismissed on that ground. The
affidavit of the plaintiff puts the value of the land in
controversy at over $25,000 on the manifestly untenable ground that
the church edifices are deprived of free egress and ingress by the
decision, and the others seemingly mean that the parcel of land
with the church buildings included is worth $30,000, the buildings
being valued at $25,000, leaving $5,000 for the land in
dispute.
But the result is the same if we go further. The evidence was
contradictory, and although we were invited to consider it on the
one side in the light of the relation of the church to the
community, and on the other in that of the custom by which the
plaza is of the essence of a
Page 226 U. S. 14
town, we can do neither. There is no question of law before us,
for it hardly was argued, and could not be with any seriousness,
that the supreme court was not authorized to review the evidence
under ยง 497 of the Philippine Code, or that this Court can consider
whether it was right in finding the preponderance of evidence to be
on the defendant's side.
Appeal and writ of error dismissed.