Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARK ANTHONY ESTEBAN v. SPS. RODRIGO C. MARCELO AND CARMEN T. MARCELO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 195477 2016-01-15	SPS. HERMINIO E. ERORITA AND EDITHA C. ERORITA v. SPS. LIGAYA DUMLAO AND ANTONIO DUMLAO BRION, J.
On the second issue, it is settled that issues that have not been raised before the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.18 Basic consideration of due process dictates this rule.[19]
	GR No. 183923 2013-11-27	GENEROSO ENESIO v. LILIA TULOP BRION, J.
The Court may not entertain the petitioner's new theory that there existed tenancy relationship between him and the previous owners of the land, and that Lilia must respect and continue that tenancy relationship. The petitioner never raised this issue before the lower tribunals, save in his motion for reconsideration before the CA. For the Court to accept the petitioner's new theory runs counter to the rule we have held in the past: "points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court will not be and ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Basic consideration of due process impels this rule."[13]
	GR No. 171937 2013-11-25	CERILA J. CALANASAN v. SPS. VIRGILIO DOLORITO AND EVELYN C. DOLORITO BRION, J.
It has not escaped the Court's attention that this is the only time the petitioner raised the arguments that donation never materialized because the donee violated a condition of the donation when she had the title of the property transferred to her name. The petitioner never raised this issue before the lower courts. It can't be emphasized enough that the Court will not revisit the evidence presented below as well as any evidence introduced for the first time on appeal.[9] Aside from being a factual issue that is not proper for the present action, the Court dismisses this new argument for being procedurally infirm and violative of due process. As we have held in the past: "points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court will not be and ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Basic consideration of due process impels this rule."[10]