Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1986 > November 1986 Decisions > G.R. No. 74243 November 14, 1986 - ASUNCION SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 74243. November 14, 1986.]

ASUNCION SANTOS, Petitioner, v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND GAVINO RAMOS, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; ISSUES NOT INVOKED IN THE TRIAL COURT CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. — The question of whether or not a petition for declaratory relief is the proper action was never raised by petitioner in her answer or in any of the pleadings before the trial court. This court in several decisions has repeatedly adhered to the general principle that points of law, theories, issues of fact, and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURT UPHELD; CASE AT BAR. — The findings of facts of the lower court will readily show that sufficient documentary evidence supports private respondent’s allegation that the deed of sale of Lot 559-B, Hermosa Cadastre, is nothing but a substitute of the Deed of Sale of Lot 1317 Hermosa Cadastre. The court a quo rendered a decision based on the evidence adduced at the trial. The trial court extensively considered all the evidence presented during the proceedings that transpired substantially. The lower courts inquired into the nature and validity of the title over the property although the action was titled one of declaratory relief. We find no plausible reason to reverse the finding of facts of the appellate tribunal.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


This is a petition for review by way of appeal by certiorari of the judgment of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) affirming the decision of the trial court in a petition for declaratory relief.

Private respondent herein, Gavino Ramos, was the petitioner for declaratory relief in the trial court while petitioner herein, Asuncion Santos, was the Respondent. Judgment was for Ramos.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the appellate court made the following findings:chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

"After a careful examination of the evidence on the record, we find no merit in this appeal.

There is no question that petitioner executed two deeds of sale in favor of Respondent. The first covering Lot 1317 dated August 28, 1961 (Exh. "A") and the second covering Lot 559-B dated September 24, 1964 (Exh. "B").

We find, however, that the second sale was merely in substitution of the first as title to the first, Lot 1317 could not be registered in respondent’s name because the OCT covering the same had been lost.

There is sufficient evidence on record proving that the first sale was never effected nor did the parties intend to give it effect.

FIRST: Exhibit "C", entitled "Kasunduan sa Ipagagawang Palaisdaan sa Baruya, Hermosa, Bataan," covering Lot 1317 and dated January 26, 1957 executed by and between petitioner and his brothers and sisters on the one hand and respondent on the other, provided that the latter shall undertake to construct a fishpond on Lot 1317 and in return respondent shall be allowed the use of Lot 1317 for 7 years, free of rent.

After 7 years, Francisco Castro, the son-in-law of respondent leased the premises of Lot 1317 from petitioner by virtue of a verbal agreement of lease.

SECOND: In 1969 the lease contract between petitioner and Francisco Castro, son-in-law of respondent was reduced in writing (Exh. "F" also "2"). There can be no reason why respondent’s son-in-law would lease Lot 1317 from petitioner and pay the latter rend if his mother-in-law was the absolute owner thereof. Neither can Francisco Castro deny knowledge that it is not his mother-in-law who is the owner thereof.

THIRD: In Criminal Case No. 572 which was brought by Gavino Ramos against Francisco Castro and his wife Trinidad Valencia, the former charged the latter with falsifying the amount of the lease rental from P300.00 to P3,000.00 for the year 1971 to 1974. The land involved in said criminal case was Lot 1317 and the Court rendered judgment finding Gavino Ramos the owner of the fishpond, Lot No. 1317 which has been leased to the accused Francisco Castro for the past 10 years at a rental of P1,000.00 a year. The Court likewise convicted the accused of falsification of a private document and sentenced Francisco Castro and Trinidad Valencia to imprisonment and to pay a fine (Exh. "G").

FOURTH: Respondent never took possession of Lot 1317 but she took possession of Lot 559-B, the lot sold by petitioner in substitution of the first (Lot 1317). Neither did respondent pay taxes on Lot 1317. Instead it was Francisco Castro who had been paying the taxes therefor as provided in the lease contract entered into between petitioner and Castro.

LAST: The trial court found the testimony of petitioner more credible than that of Respondent. The question of credibility is addressed mainly to the trial judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses and unless there is clear and manifest error or substantial facts and circumstances which have been overlooked, the findings should not be disturbed on appeal.

We, therefore, find no reversible error in the findings and conclusions of the trial court. (pp. 192-194, Record). 1

Asuncion Santos, respondent in the trial court, filed a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision but the same was denied for lack of merit, hence this appeal by way of petition for certiorari assigning the same issues raised before the appellate court, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The lower court erred in giving due course to the petition for Declaratory Judgment on the contract between Gavino Ramos and Asuncion Santos notwithstanding the fact that the proper action should have been an ordinary action for reconveyance or nullity of document.

II. The lower court erred in ordering the quieting of petitioner’s Original Certificate of Title No. 14291 over Lot 1317.

III. The lower court erred in annulling the deed of sale Exhibit "A" in a petition for declaratory judgment." (p. 20, Record)

Petitioner Asuncion Santos’ contentions are devoid of merit. The question of whether or not a petition for declaratory relief is the proper action was never raised by petitioner herein in her answer or in any of the pleadings before the trial court. While it is true that she earlier manifested, through counsel, that she "finds a need to question the propriety of the petition for declaratory relief as the proper action", her subsequent manifestation stated that she deems it "wise to continue with the hearing until terminated and thereafter file the necessary motion" (pp. 92-93, Record). It appears that she abandoned such desire as nothing in the records can support the fact that she continued to pursue it. The decisions of the trial court and the appellate court did not even touch upon such issue which can only mean that since this issue was not invoked in the trial court, it would be improper to consider it on appeal. This Court in several decisions has repeatedly adhered to the general principle that points of law, theories, issues of fact, and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.cralawnad

Neither is there any merit to the second and third assigned errors as they involve questions essentially factual in character. The findings of facts of the lower court will readily show that sufficient documentary evidence supports private respondent’s allegation that the deed of sale of Lot 559-B, Hermosa Cadastre, is nothing but a substitute of the Deed of Sale of Lot 1317, Hermosa Cadastre. The Court a quo rendered a decision based on the evidence adduced at the trial. The trial court extensively considered all the evidence presented during the proceedings that transpired substantially. The lower courts inquired into the nature and validity of the title over the property although the action was titled one of declaratory relief. We find no plausible reason to reverse the finding of facts of the appellate tribunal.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED and this petition for review is hereby DISMISSED with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Feria, Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Thus Ramos won again in the Court of Appeals.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





November-1986 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-32507 November 4, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO PANCHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40945 November 10, 1986 - IGMEDIO AZAJAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41811 November 10, 1986 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42180 November 10, 1986 - CONCESO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46392 November 10, 1986 - EMMA DELGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47276 November 10, 1986 - ESPERANZA BUYCO v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. Nos. L-50622-23 November 10, 1986 - BERNARDO CARABOT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60548 November 10, 1986 - PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

  • G.R. Nos. L-68523-24 November 10, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ESLABON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68789 November 10, 1986 - JOSE LEE, ET AL. v. PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF LEGAZPI CITY, BRANCH I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74521 November 11, 1986 - BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-68268 November 12, 1986 - FELIX VILLACORTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41315 November 13, 1986 - PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. OIL INDUSTRY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46573 November 13, 1986 - PABLO B. LOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-55033-34 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO M. ALDEMITA

  • G.R. Nos. L-62654-58 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON DAGANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69876 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PUTTHI NATIPRAVAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70145 November 13, 1986 - MARCELO A. MESINA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986 - GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. Nos. 71942-43 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. L-24856 November 14, 1986 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. EIN CHEMICAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43706 November 14, 1986 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45255 November 14, 1986 - HEIRS OF MARCIANA G. AVILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48787 November 14, 1986 - ABADESA MUÑOZ HECHANOVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-57184-85 November 14, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIA ABANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59604 November 14, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO B. PIA

  • G.R. No. 74243 November 14, 1986 - ASUNCION SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50103 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-53834 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL E. TAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54901 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ABUEG

  • G.R. No. L-65629 November 24, 1986 - TERESITA E. AGBAYANI, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71305 November 24, 1986 - MANUEL SOLIMAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71381 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO PECARDAL

  • G.R. No. L-43182 November 25, 1986 - MARCIAL F. SAMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56315 November 25, 1986 - CLEMENTE FONTANAR, ET AL. v. RUBEN BONSUBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68230 November 25, 1986 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES OF ASIA, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68298 November 25, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN BAÑARES

  • G.R. No. 71410 November 25, 1986 - JOSEFINO S. ROAN v. ROMULO T. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72182 November 25, 1986 - DEE HUA LIONG ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. ROMEO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23039 November 26, 1986 - RAMCAR, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-42230 November 26, 1986 - LAURO IMMACULATA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-46145 November 26, 1986 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53692 November 26, 1986 - LOURDES RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO N. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55912 November 26, 1986 - HEIRS OF DOMINGO P. BALOY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59919 November 26, 1986 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73184-88 November 26, 1986 - ZAMBALES BASE METALS, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75089 November 26, 1986 - LILIA LOPEZ-JISON v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-565-P November 27, 1986 - CONSORCIA BALAIS v. FRANCISCO ABUDA

  • A.M. No. R-586-P November 27, 1986 - CONSTANCIA FABRIGARAS v. NORA B. NEMEÑO

  • G.R. No. L-43195 November 27, 1986 - FIDEL GUEVARRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48117 November 27, 1986 - BRICCIO B. TENORIO v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55703 November 27, 1986 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS DRILLING AND OIL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59213 November 27, 1986 - CONGRESSIONAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45101 November 28, 1986 - ROSARIO C. MAGUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46158 November 28, 1986 - TAYUG RURAL BANK v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 73399 November 28, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON S. ABEDES