8/10/2019 #18 Mendoza vs. Bautista

1/2

Mendoza vs. Bautista

Facts:

Respondent Purita Bautista fled a complaint or annulment o sale and reconveyance

against petitioners Soledad Mendoza and her husband Perigil Raymundo and Spouses !asino

beore the R"!. Bautista alleged that Raymundo spouses sold a #$%s&uare meter property to their

co%petitioner !asino spouses in violation o her right o frst reusal under the !ivil !ode and the

'and reorm code.

!asino spouses fled a motion to dismiss on the ground o res (udicata since a prior case

)ith the same sub(ect matter and cause o action )as dismissed or non%suit. "he trial court held

that the prior case )as dismissed )ithout pre(udice and denied the motion to dismiss. *pon

motion o the respondent the trial court declared the petitioners in deault the petitioners fled a

lit the order o deault thereater the petitioners fled a motion or reconsideration and

ho)ever the trial court denied the same.

Petitioners fled a petition or certiorari )ith the !+ ho)ever the !+ dismissed the petition

or certiorari. "he petitioners fled a petition or revie) on certiorari )ith the S! ho)ever the

petition )as denied and the case )as remanded bac, to the trial court. *pon the proper motion

)hich )as granted by the trial court respondent presented her evidence e- parte.

"he trial court held that respondent substantiated the allegations in her complaint and

declared P. /#/0 or the *rban 'and Reorm 'a) as the source o his right o frst reusal the

trial court rendered a decision in avor o respondent Bautista. Petitioners fled a motion or

reconsideration arguing that the decision is contrary to P /#/0. "he !+ denied petitioner1s

motion or reconsideration it held that petitioner1s invocation o P. /#/0 is improper at that

stage since said issue )as neither brought up nor discussed by petitioners in their appeal brie.

2ssue: 345 an issue may be raised on appeal.

6eld: *nder Sec. 7 Rule #/

5o error )hich does not a8ect the (urisdiction over the sub(ect matter or the validity o the

(udgment appealed rom or the proceedings therein )ill be considered unless stated in theassignment o errors or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly

argued in the brie save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.

"he trial court erroneously concluded that respondent1s claim )as ounded on P. /#/0. 2t is an

error plain enough not to notice it even though the issue )as not e-plicitly raised by petitioners.

"he court cannot turn a blind eye to the plain error o the trial court in sustaining Bautista1s

complaint under P. /#/0 or to overloo, it )ould be inconsistent )ith substantial (ustice and

permit respondent to un(ustly proft rom a mista,e or inadvertence o the trial court. "he court

at its option to notice a plain error not assigned )as and is intended in the interest o (ustice.

+s a rule no issue may be raised unless it has been brought beore the lo)er tribunal or its

consideration. 6igher courts are precluded rom entertaining matters neither alleged in thepleadings nor raised during the proceedings belo) but ventilated or the frst time only in a

motion or reconsideration or on appeal.

9-cept :

/. rounds not assigned as errors but a8ecting (urisdiction over the sub(ect matter;

8/10/2019 #18 Mendoza vs. Bautista

2/2

=. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration o )hich is necessary in

arriving at a (ust decision and complete resolution o the case or to serve the interests o

(ustice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal (ustice;>. Matters not specifcally assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are

matters o record having some bearing on the issue submitted )hich the parties ailed to

raise or )hich the lo)er court ignored;#. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and?. Matters not assigned as errors o appeal but upon )hich the determination o a &uestion

properly assigned is dependent