FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238392. July 11, 2018.]
SEGUNDINA ARANO, petitioner,vs. TEOFREDO L. PULIDO, DELILAH PULIDO AND JOSELITO PULIDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 11, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 238392 (Segundina Arano v. Teofredo L. Pulido, Delilah Pulido and Joselito Pulido). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The Court resolves to DENY this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in upholding Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City's Resolution dated March 8, 2016. The CA correctly ruled that petitioner belatedly raised the issue on the family home's exemption from execution, and is now estopped from asserting the same. Settled is the rule that while it is true that the family home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence, and is exempt from execution or forced sale under Article 153 of the Family Code, such claim for exemption should be set up and proved to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Failure to do so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption. Here, petitioner only raised the personal privilege of exemption after the sale of the property.
The CA also correctly ruled that the issue of the defect in the notice of execution was waived. Petitioner did not raise the issue before Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Dipolog City, but only raised it in her petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC. Settled is the rule that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice.
The same holds true for the claim that the property is a public land; petitioner only raised this in her motion for reconsideration before the MTCC, and without any proof that she either has applied for homestead or was granted with one. More importantly, it is the State, through the Solicitor General, which is the proper party to raise that issue in the absence of any proof that petitioner is a grantee.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 8, 2017 and Resolution dated March 2, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 07692-MIN are AFFIRMED. aScITE
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Dipolog City, and its Sheriff are DELETED as party respondents in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; and the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is hereby DIRECTED to RETURN to petitioner the excess payment for the legal fees in the amount of P970.00 under O.R. No. 0205771-SC-EP dated April 23, 2018.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court