Case Digest (G.R. No. 76668)
Facts:
- Dulos Realty & Development Corp. filed a complaint against Samson Boats and Allied Industries, Inc., et al. for the declaration of the existence of an easement of right of way, with preliminary mandatory injunction, and for legal redemption with preliminary prohibitory injunction with damages.
- The case was initially dismissed for failure of the petitioner to prosecute.
- The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied for being filed beyond the 15-day period for appeal.
- The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals and subsequently denied.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration based on factual findings regarding the timeliness of the filing.
- The Court held that the issue of the inverted date on the proof of mailing was raised for the first time on appeal and that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
- The Court also stated that the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the exact date of receipt of the motion for reconsideration are factual in nature and ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Issues not raised in the trial court c...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 76668)
Facts:
The case of Dulos Realty & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals involves a complaint for the declaration of an easement of right of way and legal redemption. The complaint was filed against Samson Boats and Allied Industries, Inc., et al. The case was initially dismissed for failure to prosecute, and a motion for reconsideration was filed by the plaintiff. The motion for reconsideration was denied for being filed beyond the 15-day period for appeal.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is the timeliness of the filing of the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argues that the motion was filed on December 6, 1985, while the respondents claim that it was filed on December 9, 1985.
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support it...