This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-02-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In resolving controversies, courts can only consider facts and issues pleaded by the parties.[62] Courts, as well as magistrates presiding over them are not omniscient. They can only act on the facts and issues presented before them in appropriate pleadings. They may not even substitute their own personal knowledge for evidence. Nor may they take notice of matters except those expressly provided as subjects of mandatory judicial notice. | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the contrary, we find that it is respondents who are actually guilty of laches. Though not specifically pleaded, the Court can properly address the issue of laches based on petitioners' allegation in the complaint that "[n]either spouses Cipriano Hernandez and Julia Zoleta x x x nor [herein respondents] had taken steps to possess or lay adverse claim to said parcel of land from the date of their registration of title in November, 1965 up to the present."[41] Such averment is sufficient to impute abandonment of right on the part of respondents. At any rate, laches need not be specifically pleaded. On its own initiative, a court may consider it in determining the rights of the parties.[42] | |||||
|
2000-03-07 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Generally, an appellate court may only pass upon errors assigned.[25] However, this rule is not without exceptions.[26] In the following instances,[27] the Supreme Court ruled that an appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive the lack of assignment of errors and consider errors not assigned: | |||||