G.R. No. 262987 - Tidalgo vs. People

Elaine A. Del Rosario (petitioner) and Melinda F. Bonga (respondent) were involved in a real estate transaction involving a two-door residential apartment unit and an additional apartment unit, as well as an adjacent lot, all located at Coronado St., Hulo, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.
On February 9, 1990, respondent sold her two-door residential apartment to petitioner through a Deed of Conditional Sale for a total price of P330,000.00.
Under the contract, petitioner paid a down-payment of P130,000.00 with the remaining balance of P200,000.00 to be paid within twelve months from the date of execution, payable exclusively to respondent.

Despite receiving the down payment, petitioner failed to pay the remaining balance despite repeated demands by respondent.
The contract expressly allowed petitioner to occupy one door of the apartment unit rent-free pending full payment; however, petitioner occupied a different unit and even rented out the unit that was contractually reserved for her occupancy.
Petitioner also engaged in additional improvements by constructing and occupying a third-door apartment unit that was not included in the original conditional sale, thereby violating the express terms of the contract.

Respondent sought legal interventions by hiring counsel to demand payment and obtain a writ of preliminary injunction in order to prevent further alterations to the property.
The trial court, guided by the evidence—including various documents and witness testimonies—ruled in respondent’s favor by rescinding the Deed of Conditional Sale and ordering specific performance remedies such as the surrender of the subject property, reimbursement of funds, payment for unauthorized occupation, and attorney’s fees.
Several exhibits were used as evidence (e.g., Exhibit A, the Deed of Conditional Sale; other exhibits detailing payment records, demands, and construction activities) to establish the facts that petitioner deviated from the agreed contractual obligations.

The trial court rendered its decision on August 3, 1992, modifying the earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court and ordering:

The rescission of the Deed of Conditional Sale,
The surrender of the subject property and the apartment unit occupied by petitioner,
Reimbursement to respondent of 50% of the down payment with legal interest,
Payment to respondent for the use of the third-door apartment unit, and
Payment of attorney’s fees along with the confirmation of the writ of preliminary injunction.

On appeal, petitioner raised additional arguments that were not presented in the trial court, including theories related to the title and ownership issues based on a separate transaction involving respondent’s husband.
The appellate decision (CA Decision) maintained the trial court’s findings, rejecting the newly raised issues regarding title defects and asserting that new issues or arguments not previously argued cannot be considered on appeal.

Whether petitioner’s new theory—that respondent did not have title to the property due to a void transaction involving respondent’s husband and an NHA awardee—could be raised for the first time on appeal.

The central query was if issues not previously presented in the trial court are admissible or considered by the reviewing appellate court.
Whether the issue, which is rooted in alleged public policy violations concerning the transfer of public land and the subsequent conveyance, warrants reopening the case based on matters not originally raised.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in asserting that no argument or evidence not presented before the trial court can be considered on appeal.

Petitioner argued that the issue involved public policy (specifically, socialized housing) and should thus be given weight.
Petitioner contended that the protective provisions tied to the alienation of property within five years, as stipulated in related documents (including the Deed of Sale with Mortgage and relevant provisions of the Public Land Act), voided the transactions affecting title.