The purpose of the complaint  filed  in this  case is  to recover possession of a  parcel  of land  and  to  obtain  the payment of damages for its unlawful occupation.  The plaintiff alleged:  (1)   That he was the  owner of  certain urban property, consisting of a house and lot, in the district of Molo of the municipality of Iloilo, which was sufficiently described in the complaint;  (2) that, adjoining his property on  the north is the lot belonging to the defendants, and on which the latter erected, northeast of the plaintiff's  house, a temporary camarin or warehouse with  roof  and  sides of old burnt galvanized iron;  (3) that this temporary  warehouse  occupied an area of about 90 square varas on the northeastern part of the land of the plaintiff, and that nothwithstanding the demands  made by the latter upon the defendants to vacate the said land by removing the warehouse with which they had occupied it, they refused to  do so and,  instead, claimed title, ownership, and control over the disputed land, thereby  causing the plaintiff damages  to  the  extent of P3,000.  The complaint concluded by asking that judgment be rendered whereby, first,  it be found that the plaintiff is the exclusive  owner of the portion of land, of  90 square varas,  occupied by the temporary warehouse of the defendants, as  an integral part of the land described and which belongs to the plaintiff;  second, that the defendants be com- pelled  to remove and place elsewhere the said warehouse constructed on the said northeastern portion of the plaintiff's land; and, third, damages in the amount mentioned in  the complaint, and the costs.

The  defendants denied all the facts alleged  in the complaint, and, in a cross complaint,  asked for a  partition of the lot claimed by the plaintiff to be his own, alleging that they were entitled to an equal share therein, for the reason that the said property belonged to an  estate, as  yet  undivided, in which they  were interested.  The  plaintiff, in turn, denied the facts set forth in this cross complaint.

The case having come to trial, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo  rendered a judgment, in  which he found  the  following :

"1.  That the original  owner and possessor of the land in question, as established by the evidence, was the Chinaman, Liboro Ramiro (alias Bonga), whose heirs succeeded him in his ownership and possession and subsequently transferred their rights, ownership and interest in the aforesaid land to the  herein  plaintiff, who has, continuously and  without interruption, maintained his possession as owner;

"2.  That the  plaintiff and  his  predecessors in  interest have possessed and occupied the land in question, as owners, in good faith, openly, notoriously, and publicly for a period of more than thirty years prior to  the initiation of this suit;

"3. That  about  eight or nine years ago,  the  defendants constructed on the plaintiff's land a camarin or warehouse made of old galvanized iron and other second-hand material, as  shown in  the  photograph, Exhibit C,  as No. 2, and erected on that part of the plaintiff's land that is indicated in the rough sketch, Exhibit B, as No. 3;

"4. That  the true boundary line of the northern part of the plaintiff's land is that given as  "4  to 6"  in the rough sketch,  Exhibit B, and within which boundary is  included the aforementioned warehouse constructed  by the  defendants;

"5. That  the said  defendants refused to remove the said warehouse from the place before cited, after a demand had been made  upon them so to do, and, instead, alleged that they owned  the land on which it is built;

"6. That,  owing to the form of  construction of  the roof of the said  warehouse, the water shed by  this roof  falls against the  wall of the  plaintiff's house  and has thereby caused him  damage to the extent of P100;

"7. That the just and reasonable rental for the plaintiff's parcel of land, illegally occupied by the defendants during eight years,  is two pesos for each month, or, for the period of eight years, P192.

"Therefore, this court  is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to  a  judgment  against the defendants for the recovery of the  ownership and possession  of the land in question as  described  in the complaint and shown in the plan; Exhibit B,  and for damages in the sum of P292, with the costs, moreover, against the defendants."

From this judgment, rendered on  August  3, 1909, the defendants appealed  and  also moved for a new trial, which motion was  denied by the  court and the record  does  not show that the defendants took any exception to such ruling.

The latter filed a bill of exceptions with this court wherein they made five assignments of error; but in  view of  the provisions of the law, it does not lay within the power of this court in  the present case, to review the evidence,  the conclusion upon  which, by the lower court, is argued in the specification of the errors alleged against the judgment appealed from.

Pursuant to section  497,  paragraph 3, of the  Code of Civil Procedure now  in force, if the excepting party files a motion in the Court of First Instance for a new trial upon the ground that the findings of fact are plainly and manifestly against the weight of evidence, and the  judge  overrules the  motion, and  due exception  is taken, the Supreme Court may review the  evidence, make such findings  upon the facts and render  such  final judgment as  justice and equity may require.  The appellant not having taken exception to the denial of his motion for a new trial, this  court ought not to review the evidence adduced in first  instance nor could it  do so in the present case, though it  required review, owing to the failure to bring up the  evidence pursuant to the provision of law above quoted, and  must accept the findings of fact established by the trial court and only examine the  direct application of the findings of law,  on which the judgment rests, to the facts that  were proved. This examination having been made, it is our opinion that the judgment accords with the facts found by  the learned Court of First Instance to have been proved, and  that the conclusions based thereon are in agreement with the provisions of law governing the matter at  issue.

We therefore affirm  that  judgment, with the  costs  of this  instance against the appellant.  So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.