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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    BORROMEO Vs MINA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Garcia Del Rosario
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an agricultural property between petitioner Borromeo and respondent Mina. [1] Borromeo claims to have purchased the property in 1982 based on a deed of sale, but was unable to transfer title. [2] On appeal, Borromeo changed his arguments regarding the basis of his ownership and his characterization of Mina as a tenant. [3] The court ruled that Borromeo could not change his legal theories on appeal, as it would be unfair to introduce new issues without giving the other party a chance to present evidence in response.

    Copyright:

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

    BORROMEO Vs MINA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Garcia Del Rosario
    63 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an agricultural property between petitioner Borromeo and respondent Mina. [1] Borromeo claims to have purchased the property in 1982 based on a deed of sale, but was unable to transfer title. [2] On appeal, Borromeo changed his arguments regarding the basis of his ownership and his characterization of Mina as a tenant. [3] The court ruled that Borromeo could not change his legal theories on appeal, as it would be unfair to introduce new issues without giving the other party a chance to present evidence in response.

    Original Title

    8. BORROMEO vs MINA digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an agricultural property between petitioner Borromeo and respondent Mina. [1] Borromeo claims to have purchased the property in 1982 based on a deed of sale, but was unable to transfer title. [2] On appeal, Borromeo changed his arguments regarding the basis of his ownership and his characterization of Mina as a tenant. [3] The court ruled that Borromeo could not change his legal theories on appeal, as it would be unfair to introduce new issues without giving the other party a chance to present evidence in response.

    Copyright:

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

    BORROMEO Vs MINA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Garcia Del Rosario
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an agricultural property between petitioner Borromeo and respondent Mina. [1] Borromeo claims to have purchased the property in 1982 based on a deed of sale, but was unable to transfer title. [2] On appeal, Borromeo changed his arguments regarding the basis of his ownership and his characterization of Mina as a tenant. [3] The court ruled that Borromeo could not change his legal theories on appeal, as it would be unfair to introduce new issues without giving the other party a chance to present evidence in response.

    Copyright:

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

    BORROMEO 

    vs.  MINA
    G.R. No. 193747, June 05, 2013

    FACTS:
    Subject of this case is a parcel of agricultural land registered in the name of respondent. It
    appears from the TCT that respondent’s title over the said property is based on Emancipation
    Patent 77 issued by the DAR.

    Petitioner filed a Petition seeking that (a) his landholding over the subject property (subject
    landholding) be exempted from the coverage of the government’s OLT program under
    Presidential Decree No. 27; and (b) respondent’s emancipation patent over the subject
    property be consequently revoked and cancelled. He alleged that he purchased the aforesaid
    property from its previous owner as evidenced by a deed of sale. However, he was not able to
    effect the transfer of title in his name. He filed a subsequent Petition also with the PARO which
    contained identical allegations as those stated in his first Petition.

    Records show that petitioner changed his theory on appeal with respect to two (2) matters:
    first, the actual basis of his ownership rights over the subject property, wherein he now claims
    that his ownership was actually based on a certain oral sale in 1976 which was merely
    formalized by the 1982 deed of sale; and second, the status of respondent as tenant of the
    subject property, which he never questioned during the earlier stages of the proceedings
    before the DAR but presently disputes before the Court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the change of theory by the petitioner on his appeal can be admitted?

    RULING:

    No. Settled is the rule that a party who adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and
    decided by the lower courts or tribunals will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal,
    not because of the strict application of procedural rules, but as a matter of fairness. Basic
    considerations of due process dictate that theories, issues and arguments not brought to the
    attention of the trial court would not ordinarily be considered by a reviewing court, except
    when their factual bases would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse
    party in order to enable him to properly meet the issue raised, such as when the factual bases
    of such novel theory, issue or argument is (a) subject of judicial notice; or (b) had already been
    judicially admitted, which do not obtain in this case.

    Clearly, the factual bases of the foregoing theories require the presentation of proof as neither
    of them had been judicially admitted by respondent nor subject of judicial notice. Therefore,
    the Court cannot entertain petitioner’s novel arguments raised in the instant petition.
    Accordingly, he must rely on his previous positions that (a) his basis of ownership over the
    subject property rests on the 1982 deed of sale; and (b) that respondent’s status as the tenant
    of the subject property remains undisputed.

    You might also like