Lawyerly

GR No. 151334

2013-02-13

CAROLINA VDA. DE FIGURACION v. EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA

REYES, J.

Fortifying the rule, the Court had repeatedly emphasized that defenses not pleaded in the answer may not be raised for the first time on appeal. When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change the same on appeal, because to permit him to do so would be unfair to the adverse party.[29] The Court had likewise, in numerous times, affirmed that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[30]

GR No. 163072

2009-04-02

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CITY OF PASAY

CARPIO, J.

Furthermore, the airport lands and buildings of MIAA are properties of public dominion intended for public use, and as such are exempt from real property tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. However, under the same provision, if MIAA leases its real property to a taxable person, the specific property leased becomes subject to real property tax.[12] In this case, only those portions of the NAIA Pasay properties which are leased to taxable persons like private parties are subject to real property tax by the City of Pasay.

GR No. 146141

2008-10-17

ERNESTO CANADA v. ALL COMMODITIES MARKETING CORPORATION

NACHURA, J.

As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court because they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present evidence in contra to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[10] To permit petitioner at this stage to change his theory would thus be unfair to respondent, and offend the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[11]

GR No. 173207

2008-02-14

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL v. DENNIS CUSTODIO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As earlier noted, Francisco raised this argument for the first time in his motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's original Decision. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.[47] It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[48]

GR No. 173207

2008-02-14

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL v. DENNIS CUSTODIO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

It cannot also be said that FRANCISCO benefited from the said act of PCIBank because, according to the findings of this Honorable Court, the payment of the obligation of the defendant FRANCISCO out of US $ 4[2],300.00 is void. x x x[50] (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied) Francisco thus virtually admitted in these two cited pleadings that the loan to which the US$42,300 remittance was applied was his. As the object of pleadings is to draw the lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with his pleadings.[51] Unless a party alleges palpable mistake or denies such admission, judicial admissions cannot be controverted.[52]

GR NO. 166714

2007-02-09

AMELIA S. ROBERTS v. MARTIN B. PAPIO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

One repurchases only what one has previously sold. The right to repurchase presupposes a valid contract of sale between the same parties.[53] By insisting that he had repurchased the property, respondent thereby admitted that the deed of absolute sale executed by him and petitioner on April 13, 1982 was, in fact and in law, a deed of absolute sale and not an equitable mortgage; hence, he had acquired ownership over the property based on said deed. Respondent is, thus, estopped from asserting that the contract under the deed of absolute sale is an equitable mortgage unless there is allegation and evidence of palpable mistake on the part of respondent;[54] or a fraud on the part of petitioner. Respondent made no such allegation in his pleadings and affidavit. On the contrary, he maintained that petitioner had sold the property to him in July 1985 and acknowledged receipt of the purchase price thereof except the amount of P39,000.00 retained by Perlita Ventura. Respondent is thus bound by his admission of petitioner's ownership of the property and is barred from claiming otherwise.[55]

GR NO. 155650

2006-07-20

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Development Authority,[32] Fisheries Development Authority,[33] Bases Conversion Development Authority,[34] Philippine Ports Authority,[35] Cagayan de Oro Port Authority,[36] San Fernando Port Authority,[37] Cebu Port Authority,[38] and Philippine National Railways.[39]

GR NO. 158687

2006-01-25

FRISCO F. DOMALSIN v. SPS. JUANITO VALENCIANO AND AMALIA VALENCIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. Properties of public dominion are owned by the general public.[35] Public use is "use that is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public."[36] As the land in controversy is a portion of Kennon Road which is for the use of the people, there can be no dispute that same is part of public dominion. This being the case, the parties cannot appropriate the land for themselves. Thus, they cannot claim any right of possession over it. This is clear from Article 530 of the Civil Code which provides:ART. 530. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is proper to discuss the position of the Court of Appeals for comprehensive understanding of the facts and the law involved.

GR NO. 145271

2005-08-14

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

At the outset, we note that the individual respondents never alleged in their complaint in the Labor Arbiter, in their appeal in the NLRC and even in their petition for certiorari in the CA that MERALCO was their employer. They have always advanced the theory that AFSISI is their employer. A perusal of the records shows it was only in their Memorandum in the CA that this thesis was presented and discussed for the first time. We cannot ignore the fact that this position of individual respondents runs contrary to their earlier submission in their pleadings filed in the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and even in the petition for certiorari in the CA that AFSISI is their employer and liable for their termination. As the object of the pleadings is to draw the lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with his pleadings.[19]

GR No. 145271

2005-07-14

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

At the outset, we note that the individual respondents never alleged in their complaint in the Labor Arbiter, in their appeal in the NLRC and even in their petition for certiorari in the CA that MERALCO was their employer. They have always advanced the theory that AFSISI is their employer. A perusal of the records shows it was only in their Memorandum in the CA that this thesis was presented and discussed for the first time. We cannot ignore the fact that this position of individual respondents runs contrary to their earlier submission in their pleadings filed in the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and even in the petition for certiorari in the CA that AFSISI is their employer and liable for their termination. As the object of the pleadings is to draw the lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with his pleadings.[19]

GR NO. 112526

2005-03-16

STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JUAN B. AMANTE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction was raised by SRRDC only before the CA. It was never presented or discussed before the DARAB for obvious reasons, i.e., it was SRRDC itself that invoked the latter's jurisdiction. As a rule, when a party adopts a certain theory, and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal.[95] Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage.[96] To permit SRRDC to change its theory on appeal would not only be unfair to Amante, et al. but would also be offensive to the basic scales of fair play, justice and due process.[97]

	GR No. 151334 2013-02-13	CAROLINA VDA. DE FIGURACION v. EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA REYES, J.
Fortifying the rule, the Court had repeatedly emphasized that defenses not pleaded in the answer may not be raised for the first time on appeal. When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change the same on appeal, because to permit him to do so would be unfair to the adverse party.[29] The Court had likewise, in numerous times, affirmed that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[30]
	GR No. 163072 2009-04-02	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CITY OF PASAY CARPIO, J.
Furthermore, the airport lands and buildings of MIAA are properties of public dominion intended for public use, and as such are exempt from real property tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. However, under the same provision, if MIAA leases its real property to a taxable person, the specific property leased becomes subject to real property tax.[12] In this case, only those portions of the NAIA Pasay properties which are leased to taxable persons like private parties are subject to real property tax by the City of Pasay.
	GR No. 146141 2008-10-17	ERNESTO CANADA v. ALL COMMODITIES MARKETING CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court because they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present evidence in contra to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[10] To permit petitioner at this stage to change his theory would thus be unfair to respondent, and offend the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[11]
	GR No. 173207 2008-02-14	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL v. DENNIS CUSTODIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
As earlier noted, Francisco raised this argument for the first time in his motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's original Decision. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court ordinarily will not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.[47] It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[48]
	GR No. 173207 2008-02-14	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL v. DENNIS CUSTODIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
It cannot also be said that FRANCISCO benefited from the said act of PCIBank because, according to the findings of this Honorable Court, the payment of the obligation of the defendant FRANCISCO out of US $ 4[2],300.00 is void. x x x[50] (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied) Francisco thus virtually admitted in these two cited pleadings that the loan to which the US$42,300 remittance was applied was his. As the object of pleadings is to draw the lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with his pleadings.[51] Unless a party alleges palpable mistake or denies such admission, judicial admissions cannot be controverted.[52]
	GR NO. 166714 2007-02-09	AMELIA S. ROBERTS v. MARTIN B. PAPIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
One repurchases only what one has previously sold. The right to repurchase presupposes a valid contract of sale between the same parties.[53] By insisting that he had repurchased the property, respondent thereby admitted that the deed of absolute sale executed by him and petitioner on April 13, 1982 was, in fact and in law, a deed of absolute sale and not an equitable mortgage; hence, he had acquired ownership over the property based on said deed. Respondent is, thus, estopped from asserting that the contract under the deed of absolute sale is an equitable mortgage unless there is allegation and evidence of palpable mistake on the part of respondent;[54] or a fraud on the part of petitioner. Respondent made no such allegation in his pleadings and affidavit. On the contrary, he maintained that petitioner had sold the property to him in July 1985 and acknowledged receipt of the purchase price thereof except the amount of P39,000.00 retained by Perlita Ventura. Respondent is thus bound by his admission of petitioner's ownership of the property and is barred from claiming otherwise.[55]
	GR NO. 155650 2006-07-20	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CA CARPIO, J.
Development Authority,[32] Fisheries Development Authority,[33] Bases Conversion Development Authority,[34] Philippine Ports Authority,[35] Cagayan de Oro Port Authority,[36] San Fernando Port Authority,[37] Cebu Port Authority,[38] and Philippine National Railways.[39]
	GR NO. 158687 2006-01-25	FRISCO F. DOMALSIN v. SPS. JUANITO VALENCIANO AND AMALIA VALENCIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. Properties of public dominion are owned by the general public.[35] Public use is "use that is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public."[36] As the land in controversy is a portion of Kennon Road which is for the use of the people, there can be no dispute that same is part of public dominion. This being the case, the parties cannot appropriate the land for themselves. Thus, they cannot claim any right of possession over it. This is clear from Article 530 of the Civil Code which provides:ART. 530. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is proper to discuss the position of the Court of Appeals for comprehensive understanding of the facts and the law involved.
	GR NO. 145271 2005-08-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At the outset, we note that the individual respondents never alleged in their complaint in the Labor Arbiter, in their appeal in the NLRC and even in their petition for certiorari in the CA that MERALCO was their employer. They have always advanced the theory that AFSISI is their employer. A perusal of the records shows it was only in their Memorandum in the CA that this thesis was presented and discussed for the first time. We cannot ignore the fact that this position of individual respondents runs contrary to their earlier submission in their pleadings filed in the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and even in the petition for certiorari in the CA that AFSISI is their employer and liable for their termination. As the object of the pleadings is to draw the lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with his pleadings.[19]
	GR No. 145271 2005-07-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At the outset, we note that the individual respondents never alleged in their complaint in the Labor Arbiter, in their appeal in the NLRC and even in their petition for certiorari in the CA that MERALCO was their employer. They have always advanced the theory that AFSISI is their employer. A perusal of the records shows it was only in their Memorandum in the CA that this thesis was presented and discussed for the first time. We cannot ignore the fact that this position of individual respondents runs contrary to their earlier submission in their pleadings filed in the Labor Arbiter, NLRC and even in the petition for certiorari in the CA that AFSISI is their employer and liable for their termination. As the object of the pleadings is to draw the lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with his pleadings.[19]
	GR NO. 112526 2005-03-16	STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JUAN B. AMANTE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction was raised by SRRDC only before the CA. It was never presented or discussed before the DARAB for obvious reasons, i.e., it was SRRDC itself that invoked the latter's jurisdiction. As a rule, when a party adopts a certain theory, and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal.[95] Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage.[96] To permit SRRDC to change its theory on appeal would not only be unfair to Amante, et al. but would also be offensive to the basic scales of fair play, justice and due process.[97]

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. CITY OF ILOILO