It is the collection of an insurance policy against fire porvalor P10,000.

The plaintiff was

entitled to receive P1,100 monthly Melitona Star in rent the building No. 34 Square Sta. Cruz,
Manila, for five years. The plaintiff assure this right, the premium payment and the
defendant issued the relevant policy. Two months after the building have been burned, he
required the applicant Traders Insurance & Surety Co. payment of insurance amount. As the
defendant refused to pay the plaintiff acudio the Court of First Instance of Manila, which
ruled in favor of this. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
On certiorari, the Traders Insurance & Surety Co. comes to this Court, arguing that the Court
of Appeal made two errors: 1 (a) sentencing without a full conclusion made from all points
raised, as required by article 33 of Law No. 296, and 1 (b) by failing to make findings of fact
as to the application of the rule of oral test; and (2) to pass judgment without findings of fact
regarding the Exhibits 10-H and 10-I.
The error 1 (a). What are the issues had been properly raised before the Court of Appeal?
The best answer is the first page of the argument of the appellant (now appellant) which
reads as follows: virtual library chanrob1es 1aw
BRIEF FOR THE appellant
I
"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY EXHIBIT A COVERS ALL
APPELLEES INTERESTS IN THE PREMISES NO. 34 PLAZA STA. CRUZ, MANILA, ESPECIALLY HIS RIGHT TO
COLLECT RENTALS THEREFROM,
II

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLEE HAD INSURABLE INTEREST CONSISTING OF
A RIGHT TO RECEIVE RENTALS BOTH AT THE TIME WHEN THE INSURANCE TOOK EFFECT AND WHEN THE
LOSS OCCURRED."
cralaw

In resolving these issues the Court of Appeal, after transcribing the entire decision of the
Court of First Instance stated the following in its decision: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph
"As Stated by the lower court, the basic facts on Which Both parties based Their respective
contentions are not disputed, and We Have quoted the decision appealed from in full
Because We Find That the facts established in the case can not lead to other conclusions
than Those arrived at by the trial judge. There is no doubt in our mind That Both at the time
of the execution of the fire policy (Exhibit A) on April 7, 1949, and on June 5, 1949 When the
destruction by fire of the Said property for Which the policy was issued Took place, plaintiff
Juan Golangco Had an insurable interest on the property insured Which included the rents of
premises No. 34 Square Sta Cruz, Manila, Philippines, District 4, Block No. 47;. and it
Particularly is Because the policy so prepared and issued by the very defendant Specifically
That all states covered under insurance policy Said, includes the 'rent or other subject
matter of insurance in respect of or in connection With any building or any property
Contained in any building' . Under the evidence on record We can not alter the decision in
the Least aforequoted Which is hereby ADOPTED by esta Court. "Cralaw virtua1aw library
The findings of fact of the Court of First Instance (excluding the statement of facts) which
were adopted by the Court of Appeal are: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph

"After Considering the manner of Testifying of These witnesses, the evasiveness of the
witness Limpe, the improbability of His testimony, and the failure of defendant to present
Antonio Paredes, the clerk WHO admittedly Investigated the premises in question, the Court
Finds That plaintiff's version is more credible; That, before the policy (Exhibit A) was issued,
plaintiff made full and clear exposal of His interests in the premises; and Said Fire That the
policy, (Exhibit A) covers all of plaintiff's interests in the premises No. 34 Square Sta. Cruz,
Manila, Especially His right to collect rentals therefrom under the decision of esta Court in
Civil Case No. 6306 (Exhibit C). This finding is Further Strengthened by the fact That
paragraph 4 of the fire Said policy (Exhibit A), quoted above, includes insurance 'on rent';
and accords With That a policy rule is to be interpreted it in behalf of the assured.
"The argument of the defendant that, under section 49 of the Insurance Law, a policy of insurance must
specify the interest of the insured in the property insured, if he is not the absolute owner thereof, is not
meritorious because it was the defendant, not plaintiff, who prepared that policy, and it cannot take
advantage of its own acts to plaintiffs detriment; and, in any case, this provision was substantially complied
with by plaintiff when he made a full and clear statement of his interests to defendants manager.
"Having found that the policy covered all of plaintiffs interests in the premises described therein, including
his right to receive rentals, we must next determine whether he had any insurable interest therein when the
policy was issued and when the fire occurred. We find that he did so have. By virtue of the contract between
Tomas B. Lianco and the Archbishop, Lianco erected the building of which the premises in question form part
and became owner thereof (Exhibit 4-D). He transferred the ownership of the premises in question to kaw
Eng Si (Exhibit D), who in turn transferred it to plaintiff Juan Golangco (Exhibit E). Lianco and the actual
occupant of the premises acknowledged plaintiffs right to collect rentals thereon in a compromise
agreement which was incorporated in a judicial judgment (Exhibit C). Both at the time of the issuance of the
policy and at the time of the fire, plaintiff Golangco was in legal possession of the premises, collecting
rentals from its occupant (tr., Nov. 7, 1950, pp. 8, 10). It seems plain that if the premises were destroyed
as they were by fire, Golangco would be, as he was, directly damnified thereby; and hence he had an
insurable interest therein (section 12, Insurance Law).
"Defendants contrary contentions are without merit. The contract between Lianco and the Archbishop only
forbade Lianco from transferring his rights as LESSEE (Exhibit. 4-D); but the contracts Lianco made in favor
of Kaw Eng Si (Exhibit D) and plaintiff Golangco (Exhibit C) did not transfer such rights; and hence no
written consent thereto was necessary. At worst, the contract would be voidable, but not a void contract, at
the option of the Archbishop; but this would not deprive Golangco of his insurable interest until such option
were exercised; and it does not appear that it was ever exercised.
"The ejectment case filed by the Archbishop against Lianco did not remove nor destroy plaintiffs insurable
interest: first, because plaintiff was not a party thereto and cannot be bound thereby; and second, because
the judgment of the Municipal Court, at least as late as February 14, 1950, had not been executed so far as
possession of the premises were concerned (Exhibit G-10). In fact, not even garnishments were issued
against Melitona Estrella, So Eng Si (her husband) or plaintiff Golangco, the actual and legal possessors of
the premises (Exhibit F); so that, as far as plaintiff Golangco was concerned, his right to the premises and to
the rentals thereon continued to exist on June 5, 1949 when the fire took place."
cralaw virtua1aw li

The findings of fact made by the Court of Appeal established that the plaintiff assure his
interest in the building No. 34 Square Sta. Cruz, consisting of the right of charging and that
the insurable interest existed at the time of security and fire occur .
No basis, therefore, the contention of the appellant that the decision of the Court of Appeal
does not contain findings of fact of the issues raised properly. Error 1 (b). The contention of
the appellant that the Court of Appeal should have been recorded in his decision findings of
fact relating to the application of the rule on oral test is also unfounded. If the appellant

wanted to raise undue admission of oral testimony of the plaintiff, or if he would ask for the
dismissal of that testimony, must have pointed out errors in the relationship, saying it was
wrong to admit the oral testimony of the plaintiff judge, or the erred in failing to dismiss the
applicant's oral testimony despite the judge properly filed petition.
In paragraph 3 of the arguments for the first error, under the title of Argument, (p. 13 of the
brief filed in the Court of Appeal), it is when such issue was raised for the first time, instead
of arousing it in the relationship error: will not, therefore, pose in their proper place at the
right time. (Rule 48, Art. 17). The Court of Appeal is not a diver needs to look at the
arguments which are alleged mistakes.
As for the second error, that is, that the Court of Appeal has not established findings of fact
on the Exhibits 10-H and 10-I, believe that this stripped of merit for two reasons: 1.
because it was raised in the ratio of errors, and 2nd in the decision because there are such
conclusions, but are not liked by the appellant. She says in his statement, page 31: jgc:
chanroble
"The Court of Appeals adopted the finding of the trial court that not even garnishment was issued against
Melitona Estrella, So Eng Si (her husband), or plaintiff Golangco. The decision of the Court of Appeals should
therefore contain the following finding of fact:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) That Exhibits 10-H and 10-I clearly prove that notice of garnishment was served on No. 34 Plaza Sta.
Cruz (the property in question) and the occupants of No. 34 Plaza Sta. Cruz made return to the said
garnishment."
cralaw

Apparently, the applicant want this Tribunal amend the findings of fact of the Court of Appeal
on 10- Exhibits H and 10-I, which can not do. We do not review the evidence. Whether it has
erred or not the Court of Appeal in those conclusions, is not in us straighten. We should not
interfere in the functions which, by operation of law, correspond to that court.
The law cited by the appellant reads: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph
"Every decision of the Court of Appeals Shall Contain complete findings of fact on all issues
raised before it Properly." Cralaw virtua1aw library
But in Spanish reads: jgc: chanrobles.com.ph
"Any decision of the Court of Appeals will contain a full statement of the facts of all matters
arising before it." Cralaw virtua1aw library
The Castilian translation is not accurate. If we atuviesemos the translation into Spanish, the
decision of the Court of Appeal should not be more than a "full account of the facts of all
issues" that may have been raised therein. Missing something, namely the factual findings
of the court. The "full statement of the facts" is not equivalent to "the full account of the
findings of fact." The statement of facts "statement of facts" becomes the narrative of the
facts of the case so that it knows what it is. The law speaks English complete findings of fact
or conclusions of fact complete. The findings of fact (findings of fact) are what the court
adopts after study, discuss and consider the contradictory evidence presented at trial. As
Law No. 296 was discussed and approved in English, we have to take the English text and
not the poor translation into Castilian.

Article 33 of the Act, to discuss issues that arise due to the Court of Appeal does not mean
that it has to resolve all issues that may arise at any stage of the proceedings or in the
course of arguments. This is not the appropriate place: we must stir it in the ratio of errors.
Note that uses the words "properly raised" and not only raised. It is not enough to raise the
question: is necessary arousing it in the right place and time. It is a well-established forensic
practice that any question that has not been properly raised in relation error, unless the case
of lack of jurisdiction, which can raise at any stage of the case was not considered. (Enriquez
and others v Enriquez and other Jur Fil 8, 574,.. Chaplaincy Tambobong against Antonio, 8 Jur
Fil, 693;.. Paterno against City of Manila, 17 Jur Fil, 26;.. Against Felix Santiago, 24 Jur Fil,
391;.. So I Nio against Customs Manager, Phil Jur 34, 992;.. against Bandelaria Granados
Granados, 45 Jur Fil, 530;.. gemora against City Council Ilog, 58 Jur Fil.. 377; Sanchez against
Director of Lands, 63 Jur Fil, 403;.. So if Kiok, Et Al v Tiacho Macario, Off Gaz 45, 2466, 79
Phil, 696;....... and Villareal v The People of the Philippines, 47 Off. Gaz., 191, 84 Phil., 264.)
Where an appeal is taken to this court from any court, the appellant shall file with the clerk of the court
below, with his petition for appeal, an assignment of errors, which shall set out separately and particularly
each error asserted. No appeal shall be allowed unless such an assignment of errors shall accompany the
petition." (Rule 9, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, 11 U. S. Supreme Court Report
Digest.)
"The Supreme Court of the United States will not consider a question not raised below, not discussed by the
lower court, and not included in the assignment of errors." (Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. S. T. White, Et
Al., 80 L ed., 138.)

We could enumerate a long list of decisions of the Supreme Courts of the states of the
American Union that are similar to our rules ; but the cases cited enough.
"Error is not pointed in the ratio of errors in a civil case is considered wrong by the party
consented . " ( Vitug v . Montemayor, 49 Off . Gaz . , 5350. )
We declare that a matter not specified in the list of errors not properly raised , and the Court
of Appeal is not required to resolve it.
The petition with costs against the appellant denied.