This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-08-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Anent petitioners' invocation of ordinary acquisitive prescription, the Court notes that the same was raised for the first time on appeal. Before the RTC, petitioners based their claim of ownership on extraordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code[36] such that the said court declared them owners of the subject property by virtue thereof in its May 22, 2006 Decision.[37] Also with the CA, petitioners initially asserted ownership through extraordinary acquisitive prescription.[38] It was only later in their Motion for Reconsideration[39] therein that they averred that their ownership could also be based on ordinary acquisitive prescription.[40] "Settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court 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."[41] | |||||