MODESTO PALALI, Petitioner, vs. JULIET
AWISAN, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact GREGORIO AWISAN, Respondent. G.R.
No. 158385, February 12, 2010.
“A final note. Like the trial court, we
make no ruling regarding the southern portion of the property (or Lot 3, as
referred to by the parties), because this property was not included in
respondent’s complaint. Although the Rules of Court provide that "when
issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied
consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had
been raised in the pleadings,"42 such rule does not apply here. Respondent
objected43 when petitioner tried to prove his ownership of Lot 3 on the ground
of immateriality, arguing that ownership of Lot 3 was not an issue. Respondent
cannot now insist otherwise.”
