City of Manila v. Neal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City of Manila sought to expropriate a parcel of land for a public park. Commissioners were appointed to determine the value of the land. Procedural History: The commissioners submitted two reports with differing valuations. The majority report was confirmed by the court, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The owners appealed. The Petition: The defendants-appellants appealed the judgment confirming the expropriation award, arguing that the valuation was incorrect.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellate court can review the evidence taken before the commissioners when no proper exceptions were taken in the lower court. Whether the judgment of the court is in accordance with the report of the commissioners.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appellate review of evidence without proper exceptions: The Court held that a party dissatisfied with the award must move for a new trial on the ground that the judgment is not sustained by the weight of evidence and must note an exception to the order overruling such motion to have the evidence reviewed on appeal. In this case, the appellants did not object to the report of the commissioners, nor did they oppose its confirmation, nor did they take any exception to the order of confirmation. They also did not file a motion to modify, vacate, or set aside the report. Therefore, no question was presented to the Supreme Court except whether the judgment of the court was in accordance with the report. The Court emphasized that appellate courts are confined to the bill of exceptions and cannot consider the original record if it is not properly transmitted and certified. The failure to lay a foundation by exception or objection in the lower court precludes a review of the commissioners' report or the evidence taken before them. On the issue of whether the judgment is in accordance with the report: The Court found that the judgment rendered by the lower court was in accordance with the report of the majority of the commissioners. The dissenting commissioner's report was deemed erroneous for not sufficiently considering the cost of bringing the property up to street grade, which was a condition of the expert's estimate. The majority of the commissioners, by considering this cost, arrived at a valuation that the Court found no reason to disturb. The admission of evidence regarding the transfer of distant parcels was also deemed a matter of discretion and not so dissimilar as to be unhelpful in fixing the value.
Main Doctrine
In expropriation proceedings, a party dissatisfied with the award must properly move for a new trial and note exceptions to preserve the right to have the evidence reviewed on appeal. Failure to object to the commissioners' report or the order of confirmation, and to take proper exceptions, limits the appellate review to whether the judgment conforms to the report.