Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICENTE G. VILLARANDA v. SPS. HONORIO G. VILLARANDA AND ANA MARIA Y. VILLARANDA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 178110 2016-01-12	AYALA LAND v. SIMEONA CASTILLO SERENO, C.J.
In a Resolution[15] dated 3 August 2011, the members of the Special Third Division referred the case to the Court En Banc. On 16 August 2011, the Court En Banc resolved to accept the case.[16] The Court then issued a Resolution[17] requiring petitioners, the BSP and the DAR, which was represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), to file their respective Comments on the Motion for Reconsideration.
	GR No. 178110 2011-06-15	AYALA LAND v. SIMEONA CASTILLO SERENO, J.
Before the CA's unilateral action, this unsupported allegation was never raised as a live legal issue. Hence, CCFI and ALI were deprived of any opportunity to controvert the fact of the Notice of Acquisition and its legal effect, because they were never alerted that the existence of such Notice would in any way endanger their legal position. They had the right to expect that only issues properly raised before the administrative tribunals needed to be addressed. Even assuming that the Notice of Acquisition did exist, considering that CCFI and ALI had no chance to controvert the CA finding of its legal bar to conversion, this Court is unable to ascertain the details of the Notice of Acquisition at this belated stage, or rule on its legal effect on the Conversion Order duly issued by the DAR, without undermining the technical expertise of the DAR itself. To do so would run counter to another basic rule that courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question that is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to its resolution of that question. [47]
	GR No. 153837 2010-07-21	ENGR. JOB Y. BESANA v. RODSON F. MAYOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule.[20] Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.[21]
	GR No. 159889 2008-06-05	WALTER VILLANUEVA v. FLORENTINO CHIONG QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the second issue, the sale by Florentino without Elisera's consent is not, however, void ab initio. In Vda. de Ramones v. Agbayani,[21] citing Villaranda v. Villaranda,[22] we held that without the wife's consent, the husband's alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 is not void, but merely voidable. Articles 166 and 173 of the Civil Code[23] provide:ART. 166. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent...
	GR NO. 137808 2005-09-30	RAMONES v. AURORA P. AGBAYANI SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Villaranda v. Villaranda, et al.,[4] this Court, through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, ruled that without the wife's consent, the husband's alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is not void, but merely voidable. However, the wife's failure to file with the courts an action for annulment of the contract during the marriage and within ten (10) years from the transaction shall render the sale valid. In the present case, the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by Santos Ramones on May 23, 1979.[5] The Family Code took effect much later, or only on August 3, 1988. Laws should be applied prospectively, unless a legislative intent to give them retroactive effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used.[6] This exception is not present here. Therefore, the provisions of the Civil Code, not the Family Code, apply to the present case.
	GR NO. 137808 2005-09-30	RAMONES v. AURORA P. AGBAYANI SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Villaranda v. Villaranda, et al.,[4] this Court, through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, ruled that without the wife's consent, the husband's alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is not void, but merely voidable. However, the wife's failure to file with the courts an action for annulment of the contract during the marriage and within ten (10) years from the transaction shall render the sale valid. In the present case, the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by Santos Ramones on May 23, 1979.[5] The Family Code took effect much later, or only on August 3, 1988. Laws should be applied prospectively, unless a legislative intent to give them retroactive effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used.[6] This exception is not present here. Therefore, the provisions of the Civil Code, not the Family Code, apply to the present case.
	GR NO. 150755 2005-06-28	RENE GANILA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners' present contention was first raised only in their appeal to the RTC. Raising it before the appellate tribunal is barred by estoppel.[23] They should have raised it in the proceedings before the MCTC. In our view, this issue is a mere afterthought, when the MCTC decided against them. Basic rules of fair play, justice and due process require that as a rule an issue cannot be raised by the petitioners for the first time on appeal.[24]