Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Sps Tinio Vs Manzano

    Uploaded by

    FranzMordeno
    1) The petitioners admitted at the pre-trial that the private respondent was a co-owner of the disputed land along with her siblings and that her siblings sold their shares to the petitioner. 2) The petitioners argued at the trial court that the private respondent's right of legal redemption had lapsed, but then tried to argue on appeal that the land was public land, which was not raised at the pre-trial. 3) The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were bound by the theory and issues they raised at the pre-trial and could not raise new issues on appeal, as that would be unfair and against the purpose of pre-trials to clarify issues before trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps Tinio Vs Manzano

    Uploaded by

    FranzMordeno
    55 views1 page
    1) The petitioners admitted at the pre-trial that the private respondent was a co-owner of the disputed land along with her siblings and that her siblings sold their shares to the petitioner. 2) The petitioners argued at the trial court that the private respondent's right of legal redemption had lapsed, but then tried to argue on appeal that the land was public land, which was not raised at the pre-trial. 3) The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were bound by the theory and issues they raised at the pre-trial and could not raise new issues on appeal, as that would be unfair and against the purpose of pre-trials to clarify issues before trial.

    Original Description:

    remedial

    Original Title

    62. Sps Tinio vs Manzano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioners admitted at the pre-trial that the private respondent was a co-owner of the disputed land along with her siblings and that her siblings sold their shares to the petitioner. 2) The petitioners argued at the trial court that the private respondent's right of legal redemption had lapsed, but then tried to argue on appeal that the land was public land, which was not raised at the pre-trial. 3) The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were bound by the theory and issues they raised at the pre-trial and could not raise new issues on appeal, as that would be unfair and against the purpose of pre-trials to clarify issues before trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views1 page

    Sps Tinio Vs Manzano

    Uploaded by

    FranzMordeno
    1) The petitioners admitted at the pre-trial that the private respondent was a co-owner of the disputed land along with her siblings and that her siblings sold their shares to the petitioner. 2) The petitioners argued at the trial court that the private respondent's right of legal redemption had lapsed, but then tried to argue on appeal that the land was public land, which was not raised at the pre-trial. 3) The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were bound by the theory and issues they raised at the pre-trial and could not raise new issues on appeal, as that would be unfair and against the purpose of pre-trials to clarify issues before trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    62. SPS TINIO VS MANZANO HELD: NO.

    The applicable and well-settled principle is that


    "a party is bound by the theory he adopts and by the cause
    FACTS: of action he stands on and cannot be permitted after
    having lost thereon to repudiate his theory and cause of
    Private respondent Nelie Manzano is a co-owner of a
    action and adopt another and seek to re-litigate the matter
    parcel of land which her brother and sister’s sold the lot to
    anew either in the same forum or on appeal."
    spouses Amado and Milagros Tinio(spouse).
    This is in essence putting petitioners in estoppel to
    While the private respondent was abroad, her brother and question the judgment.
    sisters sold the aforesaid property to petitioner Rolando
    Tinio, the son of the other petitioners, spouses Amado and We note that at the pre-trial of the case, the parties agreed
    Milagros Tinio with a forged “Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, among other matters that "the plaintiff is co-owner in
    Claims and Interest” the respondent was made to appear equal shares with her brothers Ernesto Manzano & Roland
    as having waived her rights. Manzano & sisters Pamela Manzano & Edna Manzano of
    the properties enumerated in paragraph 2 of the 2nd
    The disputed lot was successfully registered in the name of amended complainant"; & that "the co-owners of the
    Rolando Tinio. plaintiff sold their share of the properties in favor of
    Rolando Tinio."
    Upon private respondent's return to the Philippines in Evidently, the petitioners having admitted that
    1994, the plaintiff-appellee offered to redeem the shares of
    her co-owners pursuant to Articles 1620 and 1621 of the 1. respondent Nellie Manzano along Manzano along
    New Civil Code. with her brothers and sisters were co-owners of
    the subject property,&
    Receiving no reply, private respondent filed an action for 2. that the former acquired it by sale from the
    legal redemption before the trial court. brothers & sisters, banked on the lapse of the
    prescriptive period to exercise the right of legal
    The Trial Court ruled in favor of the private respondent. redemption and the alleged knowledge and
    Affirmed by the CA. participation by respondent Nellie Manzano in
    the consummation of the sale including receipt of
    Hence, petition for review. partial payment, as precluding her from
    exercising said right.
    Petitioner raised the following question, among others: Petitioners cannot now be allowed to escape the adverse
    effects of their defense by belatedly raising a new theory
    1. (has) decided question of substance not heretofore that the land is part of the public domain as this would be
    been decided by the honorable supreme court and offensive to the fundamental tenets of fair play.
    decided it on mere technicality by declaring that A pre-trial is meant to serve as a device to clarify and
    petitioners could not raise the issue that there is no narrow down the basic issues between the parties, to
    legal redemption over a land of the public domain ascertain the facts relative to those issues and to enable
    because it was raised for the first time on appeal; the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the
    Xxx xxx xxx issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that
    said trial are carried on in the dark.
    4. Gravely erred in ruling that the trial court had
    jurisdiction over the subject land which under existing Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all
    jurisprudence lie within the exclusive authority of the issues necessary to the disposition of a case are properly
    director of lands under the executive department. raised.

    Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are


    expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of
    ISSUE: W/N petitioner is allowed to escape the adverse law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except
    effects of their defense by belatedly raising a new theory such as may involve privileged or impeaching matters.
    that the land is part of the public domain?
    The determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars
    the consideration of other questions on appeal.

    You might also like