This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is settled that the determination of the issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal.[28] Having accepted the MTC's favorable 26 October 1999 decision which cited liberal construction of procedural rules in excusing respondents' tardy filing of their position paper,[29] petitioners were also resultantly barred from taking issue against the former's late filing of said position paper on 28 June 1999. With the RTC's 23 May 2000 decision in Civil Case No. 2866-99-C likewise not delving into the matter, we find that the CA cannot be faulted for brushing aside petitioners' belated harping over said procedural lapses in their comment to respondents' petition for review which was docketed thereat as CA-G.R. SP No. 6123. After all, points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court will not be and ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[30] | |||||
|
2010-04-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner had, of course, endeavored to establish that respondent's predecessors-in-interest had served him a demand to vacate the subject parcel as early as 31 July 1996.[39] Correctly brushed aside by the Court of Appeals on the ground, among others, that respondent had no participation in its preparation, we find said demand letter of little or no use to petitioner's cause in view of its non-presentation before the MeTC. However, much as it may now be expedient for petitioner to anchor his cause thereon, said demand letter was first introduced in the record only as an attachment to his reply to respondent's comment to the motion for reconsideration of the 14 July 2005 order issued by the RTC.[40] The rule is settled, however, that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court will not be and ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[41] Basic consideration of due process impels this rule.[42] | |||||
|
2009-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is also a settled jurisprudence that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[28] Thus, since the issue of whether the estate of the deceased Agustin Ulep has been settled or not was raised by petitioners for the first time on appeal before the RTC, this issue should not be given consideration. | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest.[28] This basic doctrine on unjust enrichment simply means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another's expense.[29] There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.[30] Article 22 of the Civil Code states the rule in this wise:ART. 22. Every person who, through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. | |||||