Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. LUIS V. CRUZ AND AIDA CRUZ v. SPS. ALEJANDRO FERNANDO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 152262 2012-02-15	FELIMON MANGUIOB v. JUDGE PAUL T. ARCANGEL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is settled that issues not raised timely in the proceedings before the trial court cannot be considered on review or appeal as to do so would be to trample on the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.[38]
	GR No. 155407 2008-11-11	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY v. VS.LEONILO A. MAGLASANG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As it were, the Court cannot but agree with the CA when it ruled that petitioner's belated objection on appeal of the classification of the subject lots could no longer be entertained. For the same reason the Court refuses to consider petitioner's Manifestation[17] stating that a property adjacent to the subject lots was purchased at P 80.00 per square meter and urging the Court to peg the value of the subject properties at the same amount. Suffice it to state that issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel. Matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are raised for the first time. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.[18]
	GR No. 159578 2008-07-28	ROGELIA DACLAG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This issue was only raised for the first time in petitioners' Memorandum filed with us. Well-settled is the rule that issues not raised and/or ventilated in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and cannot be considered for review -- to consider questions belatedly raised tramples on the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.[29]
	GR No. 168115 2007-06-08	VICENTE ONG LIM SING v. FEB LEASING NACHURA, J.
First, Lim can no longer question Galang's authority as FEB's authorized representative in filing the suit against Lim. Galang was the representative of FEB in the proceedings before the trial court up to the appellate court. Petitioner never placed in issue the validity of Galang's representation before the trial and appellate courts. Issues raised for the first time on appeal are barred by estoppel. Arguments not raised in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review; otherwise, it would violate basic principles of fair play.[19]
	GR NO. 143598 2006-07-20	EPITACIO SIALANA v. MARY Y. AVILA SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
And last, petitioner theorizes that the overseers had been granted usufructuary rights. While it is established in civil law that a usufructuary may in certain cases lease the property under his stewardship to another,[27] suffice it to say that this is a matter which was raised for the first time on appeal[28] and cannot be considered for review-to consider questions belatedly raised tramples on the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.[29]