ARTEMIO SANTOS, PACENCIA, REYES, CATALINA PASCUAL, TEODORA SANTOS, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. AND LOLITA DEOPANTE VDA. DE SAAVEDRA.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 100963
- Promulgated: 1993-04-06
Doctrine
General rule: a non-appealing party may not seek modification or reversal of a judgment not appealed from; counter-assignments may only sustain the judgment on other grounds.
Exception: tribunals may consider unassigned errors when they involve matters affecting the lower court's jurisdiction (and other serious errors recognized by Rules/jurisprudence).
Facts
Petitioners Artemio Santos, Pacencia Reyes, Catalina Pascual and Teodora Santos filed a petition against the Court of Appeals and respondents Hon. Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Lolita Deopante Vda. de Saavedra.
The petition was considered devoid of merit by the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals' decision dated 11 July 1991 was affirmed in toto by the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether a party may impugn or seek modification of a judgment not appealed from by him through counter-assignments of error.
Ruling
No. A party cannot impugn the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him; counter-assignments of error may be made only to sustain the judgment on other grounds, not to modify or reverse it, and the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The CA decision of 11 July 1991 is affirmed in toto.
The Rules of Court and jurisprudence nevertheless permit a tribunal to consider errors, even if unassigned, when they involve matters such as errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction.
Keywords
G.R. No. 100963, unjust enrichment, NEMO CUM ALTERIUS DETRIMENTO LOCUPLETARI POTEST, Article 1678 Civil Code, right of reimbursement for improvements, lessee in good faith, ejectment case, affirmative relief, errors affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter, plain errors, clerical errors, contract of lease, petition for review on certiorari, default judgment, unpaid rentals, Rules of Court, santos, private, reimbursement, petitioners