G.R. No. 132102 May 19, 1999
SPS. AMADO & MILAGROS TINIO and ROLANDO TINIO, petitioners, vs. NELLIE MANZANO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Nellie Manzano is a co-owner of a parcel of land with her siblings. In 1988, while she was abroad, her siblings sold the entire property to petitioner Rolando Tinio for P100,000. A forged affidavit made it appear Manzano waived her rights. Tinio later obtained a Miscellaneous Sales Patent for a portion of the land and secured a title. Upon her return in 1994, Manzano offered to redeem the sold shares from Tinio pursuant to Articles 1620 and 1621 of the Civil Code on legal redemption among co-owners. After receiving no reply, she filed an action for legal redemption.
The trial court ruled in favor of Manzano, declaring her right to redeem and ordering Tinio to execute a deed of sale upon her payment of P100,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the land was part of the public domain (thus negating co-ownership and the right of redemption), that Manzano was aware of the sale and estopped, and that a newly discovered receipt proved her awareness.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Manzano’s right to legally redeem the property, despite petitioners’ new arguments regarding the land’s character as public domain and Manzano’s alleged estoppel.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Court of Appeals. On the first and fourth grounds, the Court ruled that the theory that the property is part of the public domain was raised for the first time on appeal. During pre-trial, petitioners admitted Manzano’s co-ownership and the sale by her co-owner siblings. The agreed issues centered on the exercise of the right of redemption, its timeliness, and estoppel—not the land’s character. A party cannot change its theory on appeal to the prejudice of the adverse party, as it violates fair play and the purpose of pre-trial to narrow issues.
Regarding estoppel and newly discovered evidence (the second and third grounds), the Court found the alleged receipt was not properly presented as newly discovered evidence under the rules. A motion for new trial with supporting affidavits was required, not a mere attachment to a motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, the receipt did not clearly identify the subject property or show Manzano received payment for her share. Thus, petitioners failed to prove Manzano participated in the sale or was estopped from exercising her clear statutory right of legal redemption as a co-owner.