This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| On 10 January 2012, the general counsel of the BSP submitted a Manifestation.[18] It explained that its interest in the case stemmed from its receivership-liquidation of the MBC, particularly the settlement of the latter's obligations to the BSP.[19] As discussed in our Decision, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 85960 allowed petitioner CCFI, as the mortgage debtor of MBC, to sell its assets, including the subject landholding, "at their fair market value, under the best terms and condition and for the highest price under current real estate appraisals."[20] Counsel for the BSP posited that its interest in the case ended upon the sale of the subject land to ALI, after which the BSP entered into settlement scheme with MBC.[21] | |||||
|
2015-08-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due process.[26] | |||||
|
2014-09-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The general rule is that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due process.[43] | |||||