G.R. No. L-39789 June 20, 1988
LUCIO LUCENTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BUKIDNON, BRANCH VI, as presided by HONORABLE EDUARDO DE G. MONTENEGRO, and RESTITUTO LUCENTA, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves an action for recovery of possession filed by petitioner Lucio Lucenta against his brother, private respondent Restituto Lucenta. Both parties are members of a cultural minority group. The dispute centers on a parcel of land in Bukidnon. The parties admitted entering into an oral contract of barter wherein Restituto’s house was exchanged for a portion of Lucio’s land. The core factual controversy at trial was whether the barter covered only about 600 square meters or the entire 2.2635-hectare lot. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found that the whole lot was the subject of the exchange. It based this conclusion on several factors, including Lucio’s delivery of all land-related documents (tax declaration and receipts) to Restituto at the time of the barter, the immediate and unchallenged possession by Restituto of the entire property since 1963, and the significant delay of eight years before Lucio filed suit.
After the trial, Lucio, in his memorandum, shifted his legal theory. He abandoned the dispute over the extent of the land and instead attacked the validity of the barter contract itself. He argued it was void for non-compliance with Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, which required certain conveyances by cultural minorities to have government approval. The trial court refused to rule on this new issue, as it was not raised in the pleadings, during pre-trial, or at trial. It upheld the oral barter contract based on the preponderance of evidence.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in not invalidating the barter contract for lack of government approval as required by law for members of cultural minorities.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the petitioner was estopped from raising the issue of the barter’s legality for the first time on appeal. Fundamental rules of procedure mandate that defenses and issues not raised in the pleadings, during pre-trial, or at the trial cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. The petitioner’s belated attempt to nullify the contract based on the Administrative Code was a clear shift from his original theory of the case, which solely concerned the area of land involved.
Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of equity and laches against the petitioner. Citing the precedent in Heirs of Batiog Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan, the Court ruled that even assuming the barter required approval, the petitioner’s conduct estopped him from invoking this defect. He voluntarily delivered possession and all documents of title to his brother in 1963 and took no action to question the transaction for eight years, only doing so after a national highway increased the land’s value. This prolonged inaction, coupled with the respondent’s good-faith reliance and development of the property, barred the petitioner from using a technical legal requirement to undo the agreement. The Court emphasized that no fraud or imposition was present, and both brothers were fully aware of their actions, making the application of estoppel and laches particularly appropriate to prevent injustice.