Paray, Jr. v. Chua

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 231300. November 11, 2020.]

GERARD S. PARAY, JR. AND GENEVIEVE S. PARAY, petitioners,vs. HELEN CERVANTES CHUA AND NANCY CERVANTES CHUA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 November 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 231300 (Gerard S. Paray, Jr. and Genevieve S. Paray v. Helen Cervantes Chua and Nancy Cervantes Chua). — The Court DENIES the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in rendering the assailed dispositions as to warrant the exercise of the Courts discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

Whether a verbal demand was validly made or that there was prior liquidation of the obligation is a factual issue which is not proper under Rule 45. This Court is not a trier of facts, hence, it is beyond its function to re-examine and weigh anew the parties' respective evidence. 1 Also, this Court adheres to the long-standing principle that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the parties and this Court.

At any rate, these supposed procedural deficiencies are being raised for the first time here. As a rule, a party which deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower court will not be permitted to change its theory on appeal. 2 Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. 3 A judgment going outside the issues and purporting to adjudicate something upon which the parties were not heard is not merely irregular, but extrajudicial and invalid. 4

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., 700 Phil. 327, 351 (2012).

2.Bote v. Sps. Veloso, 700 Phil. 78 (2012).

3.Chinatrust (Phils) Commercial Bank v. Turner, 812 Phil. 1, 17 (2017).

4.Bernas v. Court of Appeals, 296-A Phil. 90, 104 (1993).