Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AYALA LAND v. SIMEONA CASTILLO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 178110 2016-01-12	AYALA LAND v. SIMEONA CASTILLO SERENO, C.J.
On 29 August 1995, the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 85960 and 92610 allowed the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, as receiver, to sell the assets of the Manila Banking Corporation (MBC), including the subject property, to a third party.[1] It may be recalled that the property was earlier mortgaged to the MBC by Capitol Citifarms, Inc. (CCFI), and was later awarded to the former in an auction sale. Pursuant to the Court's Resolution, a "Deed of Absolute Sale"[2] over the property was executed in favor of Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) in December 1995.[3]
	GR No. 202789 2015-06-22	CIR v. PUREGOLD DUTY FREE VELASCO JR., J.
It is well settled that matters that were neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on appeal[13] and are barred by estoppel.[14] To allow the contrary would constitute a violation of the other party's right to due process, and is contrary to the principle of fair play. In Ayala Land Incorporation v. Castillo,[15] this Court held that: It is well established 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 belatedly raised would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due process.
	GR No. 205867 2015-02-23	MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA v. GREGORIA TAGUFA MENDOZA, J.
Finally, respondents' supposition that Hortizuela was ineligible to own the subject property pursuant to B.P. Blg. 223 because she was no longer a Filipino citizen cannot be considered for having been raised only for the first time on appeal. It must be noted that 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.[27] The reason therefor is due process.
	GR No. 187226 2015-01-28	CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS v. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE WESTGROVE REYES, J.
"It is well established 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 belatedly raised would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due process."[28]
	GR No. 173987 2013-02-25	PADILLA MERCADO v. SPS. AGUEDO ESPINA PERALTA, J.
As to the first issue, there is no dispute that the issue of timeliness of respondents' Motion to Dismiss petitioners' Amended Complaint was not raised by petitioners before the RTC. Neither was this issue raised in their Comment to respondents' petition for certiorari filed with the CA. It was only in their Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision that this matter was raised. It is well established that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel.[12] 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.[13] Basic considerations of due process impel the adoption of this rule.[14]