“X
x x.
Fifth,
We cannot also buy appellants’ argument that appellee refused to accept the
subsequent payments made by them. It is settled that an issue which was not
raised during the trial in the court below could not be raised for the first
time on appeal, as to do so, would be offensive to the basic rules of fair
play, justice and due process. Here, appellant Jaime Sebastian twice testified
before the Court, first, during the hearing on the preliminary injunction and
on the trial proper. Nothing was mentioned about the refusal on the part of the
bank to accept their subsequent payments.
Assuming,
arguendo, that appellee bank indeed refused to accept the subsequent payment
from appellants, they could have consigned the same before the Court. They
failed to do so. There was no effort on their part to continue paying their
obligations. Thus,
having signed a deed of mortgage in favor of appellee bank, appellants should
have foreseen that when their principal obligation was not paid when due, the
mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property
seized and sold with a view to applying the proceeds to the payment ofthe
principal obligation.37
X
x x.”
Read:
SPOUSES JAIME SEBASTIAN AND EVANGELINE SEBASTIAN,
Petitioners, vs. BPI FAMILY BANK, INC., CARMELITA ITAPO AND BENJAMIN HAO, Respondents. G.R. No. 160107, October 22, 2014
