Tinio v. Manzano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Nellie A. Manzano was a co-owner of Lot No. 113 with her siblings. While she was abroad, her siblings sold their shares to petitioner Rolando Tinio for P100,000.00. An "Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, Claim and Interest" was forged, making it appear that Nellie waived her rights. Subsequently, Rolando Tinio obtained a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over a portion of Lot No. 113 (Lot No. 113-B) and secured a title. Upon Nellie's return in 1994, she offered to redeem the shares of her co-owners but received no reply. She then filed an action for legal redemption. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Nellie Manzano, declaring her right of redemption, ordering Rolando Tinio to execute a deed of sale, and authorizing him to withdraw the redemption price of P100,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the instant petition for review. The Petition: Petitioners sought to reverse the CA decision, raising issues regarding the right to legal redemption over land of the public domain, the alleged awareness of respondent Manzano of the sale, the denial of their motion for reconsideration with newly discovered evidence, and the trial court's jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the issue that the subject property is of the public domain can be raised for the first time on appeal. Whether respondent Manzano was aware of the sale of the land. Whether a receipt presented as newly discovered evidence should have been admitted. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject land.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's ruling in favor of the private respondent is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of raising the public domain argument for the first time on appeal: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the argument that the land is of the public domain was an issue raised for the first time on appeal and thus could not be considered. The Court reiterated the principle that issues not raised and/or ventilated in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the parties had agreed during pre-trial that the respondent was a co-owner and that her co-owners sold their shares to petitioner Rolando Tinio. By admitting these facts and stipulating on them, petitioners are now estopped from claiming that the land is of the public domain, as this would be a repudiation of the theory adopted during pre-trial and an offensive to fair play. The Court emphasized that a party is bound by the theory it adopts and cannot be permitted to repudiate it after having lost on that theory. On the issue of respondent Manzano's awareness of the sale: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court's finding that the respondent was not apprised of the consummated sale and did not know the actual vendee until after filing the complaint. While she was aware of negotiations, this did not equate to actual knowledge of the consummated sale. The evidence showed that the petitioners attempted to conceal the sale and deprive her of her share by forging an affidavit of assignment and obtaining a sales patent and title to her exclusion. The Court reiterated that questions of fact, such as awareness of a sale, cannot be raised before the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45. On the issue of newly discovered evidence: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in not admitting the receipt attached to the motion for reconsideration as newly discovered evidence. The petitioners should have filed a motion for new trial under the proper rule, not merely a motion for reconsideration with an attached "newly discovered evidence." They failed to comply with the requisites for newly discovered evidence, namely, that it was discovered after trial, could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and is material and would likely change the judgment. Moreover, the Court noted that the letter-receipt did not clearly identify the property and did not definitively show that the amount received was for the respondent's share of the property. On the issue of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the case did not involve jurisdiction to dispose of public lands, which is vested with the Director of Lands, but rather the right of legal redemption of a co-owner. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The stipulation on co-ownership and sale during pre-trial, coupled with the issuance of a certificate of title to Rolando Tinio, meant the property had become private property beyond the control of the Bureau of Lands. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Main Doctrine
A party is bound by the theory adopted and the cause of action relied upon during pre-trial and cannot repudiate it on appeal. Issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. A claim that the property is of the public domain, when co-ownership and sale were stipulated during pre-trial, is an abandoned theory and an issue raised for the first time on appeal, thus barred by estoppel.