[G.R. No. 146839, March 23 : 2011] ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL, JO! T. CATUNGAL, JR., CAROL"N T. CATUNGAL AND !RL#NDACATUNGAL$%!!L, &!T#T#ON!R, '. ANG!L . RODR#GU!(, R!&OND!NT.D ! C ## O N L!ONARDO$D! CATRO, J.:Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the following issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40!" consoli#ate# with CA-G.R. $P No. !"%%& 'a( the August ), !000 *ecision,+,- which affir.e# the *ecision+!- #ate# /a0 10, ,22! of the Regional 3rial Court 'R3C(, Branch !" of 4apu-lapu Cit0, Ce5u in Civil Case No. !1%-4, an# '5( the 6anuar0 10, !00, Resolution,+1- #en0ing herein petitioners7 .otion for reconsi#eration of the August ), !000 *ecision.3he relevant factual an# proce#ural antece#ents of this case are as follows&3his controvers0 arose fro. a Co.plaint for *a.ages an# 8n9unction with Preli.inar0 8n9unction:Restraining;r#er+4- file# on *ece.5er ,0, ,220 50 herein respon#ent Angel $. Ro#rigue< 'Ro#rigueuestioning the #enial of their .otion to #is.iss an# the or#er of #efault. 3his was #oc=ete# as CA$G.R. & No. 2)*6*./eanwhile, Ro#rigue< procee#e# to present his evi#ence 5efore the trial court.8n a *ecision #ate# /a0 10, ,22!, the trial court rule# in favor of Ro#rigueuisition of 4ot ,021 which the0 .isrepresente# was part of the propert0 sol# 5ut was in fact owne# 50 a thir# part0 an# or#ere# the. to pa0 P,00,000.00 as #a.ages, P10,000.00 as attorne07s fees an# costs.3he Catungals appeale# the #ecision to the Court of Appeals, asserting the co..ission of the following errors 50 the trial court in their appellants7 5rief) #ate# De5ruar0 2, ,224&83GA C;HR3 A JH; ARRA* 8N N;3 *8$/8$$8NG ;D '$8C( 3GA CA$A ;N 3GA GR;HN*$ ;D 8/PR;PAR VANHA AN* 4ACK ;D 6HR8$*8C38;N.883GA C;HR3 A JH; ARRA* 8N C;N$8*AR8NG 3GA CA$A A$ A PAR$;NA4 AN* N;3 A RAA4 AC38;N.888GRAN38NG B83G;H3 A*/8338NG 3GA3 VANHA BA$ PR;PAR4C 4A8* AN* 3GA CA$A 8$ A PAR$;NA4 AC38;N, 3GA C;HR3 A JH; ARRA* 8N *AC4AR8NG 3GA *ADAN*AN3$ 8N *ADAH43 *HR8NG 3GA PRA-3R8A4 BGAN A3 3GA3 38/A 3GA *ADAN*AN3$ GA* A4RAA*C D84A* 3GA8R AN$BAR 3; 3GA C;/P4A8N3.8V3GA C;HR3 A JH; ARRA* 8N C;N$8*AR8NG 3GA *ADAN*AN3$ A$ GAV8NG 4;$3 3GA8R 4AGA4 $3AN*8NG 8N C;HR3 BGAN A3 /;$3 3GAC C;H4* ;N4C BA C;N$8*ARA* A$ 8N *ADAH43 AN* $3844 AN3834A* 3; N;38CA$ ;D A44 DHR3GAR PR;CAA*8NG$ A$PAC8A44C AD3AR 3GAC GA* D84A* 3GA /;38;N 3; 48D3 3GA ;R*AR ;D *ADAH43.V3GA C;HR3 A JH; ARRA* 8N 8$$H8NG 3GA BR83 +;D- PRA48/8NARC 8N6HNC38;N RA$3RA8N8NG 3GA ALARC8$A ;D AC3$ ;D ;BNAR$G8P AN* ;3GAR R8GG3$ ;VAR RAA4 PR;PAR3C ;H3$8*A ;D 3GA C;HR37$ 3ARR83;R8A4 6HR8$*8C38;N AN* 8NC4H*8NG PAR$;N$ BG; BARA N;3 BR;HGG3 HN*AR 83$ 6HR8$*8C38;N, 3GH$ 3GA NH4483C ;D 3GA BR83.V83GA C;HR3 A JH; ARRA* 8N N;3 RA$3RA8N8NG 83$A4D /;3H PR;P+R-8; DR;/ C;N38NH8NG B83G 3GA PR;CAA*8NG$ 8N 3GA CA$A AN* 8N RAN*AR8NG *AC8$8;N 3GARA8N 8D ;N4C D;R RAA$;N ;D C;HR3A$C AN* DA8RNA$$ BA8NG /AN*A3A* A$ *8$PAN$AR ;D DA8R AN* AJHA4 6H$38CA 3; A44 AN* $HN*RC B83G;H3 DAAR ;R DAV;R 83 GAV8NG BAAN $ARVA* AAR48AR B83G A C;PC ;D 3GA PA3838;N D;R CAR38;RAR8 JHA$38;N8NG 83$ VANHA AN* 6HR8$*8C38;N 8N CA-G.R. N;. $P !"%% 8N DAC3 N;38CA$ D;R 3GA D848NG ;D C;//AN3 3GARA3; GA* A4RAA*C BAAN $AN3 ;H3 BC 3GA G;N;RAB4A C;HR3 ;D APPAA4$, $AC;N* *8V8$8;N, AN* 3GA C;HR3 A JH; BA$ DHRN8$GA* B83G C;PC ;D $A8* N;38CA.V883GA C;HR3 A JH; ARRA* 8N *AC8*8NG 3GA CA$A 8N DAV;R ;D 3GA P4A8N38DD AN* AGA8N$3 3GA *ADAN*AN3$ ;N 3GA BA$8$ ;D AV8*ANCA BG8CG ARA 8/AG8NARC, DABR8CA3A*, AN* *AV;8* ;D 3RH3G, 3; BA $3A3A* 8N *A3A84 8N 3GA *8$CH$$8;N ;D 3G8$ PAR38CH4AR ARR;R, AN*, 3GARAD;RA, 3GA *AC8$8;N 8$ RAVAR$8B4A.+12-;n August 1,, ,22%, after 5eing grante# several e?tensions, Ro#rigue< file# his appellee7s 5rief,+40- essentiall0 arguing the correctness of the trial court7s *ecision regar#ing the foregoing issues raise# 50 the Catungals. $u5se>uentl0, the Catungals file# a Repl0 Brief+4,- #ate# ;cto5er ,, ,22%.Dro. the filing of the appellants7 5rief in ,224 up to the filing of the Repl0 Brief, the spouses Catungal were represente# 50 appellant 6ose Catungal hi.self. Gowever, a new counsel for the Catungals, Att0. 6esus N. Borro.eo 'Att0. Borro.eo(, entere# his appearance 5efore the Court of Appeals on $epte.5er !, ,22".+4!- ;n the sa.e #ate, Att0. Borro.eo file# a /otion for 4eave of Court to Dile Citation of Authorities+41- an# a Citation of Authorities.+44- 3his woul# 5e followe# 50 Att0. Borro.eo7s filing of an A##itional Citation of Authorit0 an# $econ# A##itional Citation of Authorit0 5oth on Nove.5er ,", ,22".+4%-*uring the pen#enc0 of the case with the Court of Appeals, Agapita Catungal passe# awa0 an# thus, her hus5an#, 6ose, file# on De5ruar0 ,", ,222 a .otion for Agapita7s su5stitution 50 her surviving chil#ren+4-;n August ), !000, the Court of Appeals ren#ere# a *ecision in the consoli#ate# cases CA-G.R. CV No. 40!" an# CA-G.R. $P No. !"%%,+4"- affir.ing the trial court7s *ecision.8n a /otion for Reconsi#eration #ate# August !,, !000,+4)- counsel for the Catungals, Att0. Borro.eo, argue#for the first ti.e that paragraphs ,'5( an# %+42- of the Con#itional *ee# of $ale, whether ta=en separatel0 or 9ointl0, violate# the principle of .utualit0 of contracts un#er Article ,10) of the Civil Co#e an# thus, sai# contract was voi# ab initio. Ge a#verte# to the cases .entione# in his various citations of authorities to support his argu.ent of nullit0 of the contract an# his position that this issue .a0 5e raise# for the first ti.eon appeal./eanwhile, a $econ# /otion for $u5stitution+%0- was file# 50 Att0. Borro.eo in view of the #eath of 6ose Catungal.8n a Resolution #ate# 6anuar0 10, !00,, the Court of Appeals allowe# the su5stitution of the #ecease# Agapita an# 6ose Catungal 50 their surviving heirs an# #enie# the .otion for reconsi#eration for lac= of .eritGence, the heirs of Agapita an# 6ose Catungal file# on /arch !00, the present petition for review,+%,- which essentiall0 argue# that the Court of Appeals erre# in not fin#ing that paragraphs ,'5( an#:or % of the Con#itional *ee# of $ale, violate# the principle of .utualit0 of contracts un#er Article ,10) of the Civil Co#e.3hus, sai# contract was suppose#l0 voi# a5 initio an# the Catungals7 rescission thereof was superfluous.8n his Co..ent,+%!- Ro#rigue< highlighte# that 'a( petitioners were raising new .atters that cannot 5e passe# upon on appealI '5( the vali#it0 of the Con#itional *ee# of $ale was alrea#0 a#.itte# an# petitionerscannot 5e allowe# to change theories on appealI 'c( the >uestione# paragraphs of the Con#itional *ee# of $ale were vali#I an# '#( petitioners were the ones who co..itte# frau# an# 5reach of contract an# were not entitle# to relief for not having co.e to court with clean han#s.3he Court gave #ue course to the Petition+%1- an# the parties file# their respective /e.oran#a.3he issues to 5e resolve# in, the case at 5ar can 5e su..e# into two >uestions&8. Are petitioners allowe# to raise their theor0 of nullit0 of the Con#itional *ee# of $ale for the first ti.e on appealM88. *o paragraphs ,'5( an# % of the Con#itional *ee# of $ale violate the principle of .utualit0 of contracts un#er Article ,10) of the Civil Co#eMOn petitioners' change of theoryPetitioners clai.e# that the Court of Appeals shoul# have reverse# the trial courts7 *ecision on the groun# ofthe allege# nullit0 of paragraphs ,'5( an# % of the Con#itional *ee# of $ale notwithstan#ing that the sa.e was not raise# as an error in their appellants7 5rief. Citing Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals,+%4- petitioners argue# in the Petition that this case falls un#er the following e?ceptions&'1( /atters not assigne# as errors on appeal 5ut consi#eration of which is necessar0 in arriving at a 9ust #ecision an# co.plete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of 9ustice or to avoi# #ispensing piece.eal 9usticeI'4( /atters not specificall0 assigne# as errors on appeal 5ut raise# in the trial court an# are .atters of recor# having so.e 5earing on the issue su5.itte# which the parties faile# to raise or which the lower court ignore#I'%( /atters not assigne# as errors on appeal 5ut closel0 relate# to an error assigne#I an#'( /atters not assigne# as errors 5ut upon which the #eter.ination of a >uestion properl0 assigne# is #epen#ent.Be are not persua#e#.3his is not an instance where a part0 .erel0 faile# to assign an issue as an error in the 5rief nor faile# to argue a .aterial point on appeal that was raise# in the trial court an# supporte# 50 the recor#. Neither is this a case where a part0 raise# an error closel0 relate# to, nor #epen#ent on the resolution of, an error properl0 assigne# in his 5rief. 3his is a situation where a part0 co.pletel0 changes his theor0 of the case on appeal an# a5an#ons his previous assign.ent of errors in his 5rief, which plainl0 shoul# not 5e allowe# as anathe.a to #ue process.Petitioners shoul# 5e re.in#e# that the o59ect of plea#ings is to #raw the lines of 5attle 5etween the litigants an# to in#icate fairl0 the nature of the clai.s or #efenses of 5oth parties.+%- 8n Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals,+%"- we hel# that @+w-hen a part0 a#opts a certain theor0 in the trial court, he will not 5e per.itte# to change his theor0 on appeal, for to per.it hi. to #o so woul# not onl0 5e unfair to the other part0 5ut it woul# also 5e offensive7 to the 5asic rules of fair pla0, 9ustice an# #ueprocess.@Be have also previousl0 rule# that @courts of 9ustice have no 9uris#iction or power to #eci#e a >uestion not inissue. 3hus, a 9u#g.ent that goes 5e0on# the issues an# purports to a#9u#icate so.ething on which the court #i# not hear the parties, is not onl0 irregular 5ut also e?tra9u#icial an# invali#. 3he rule rests on the fun#a.ental tenets of fair pla0.@+%2-*uring the procee#ings 5efore the trial court, the spouses Catungal never clai.e# that the provisions in the Con#itional *ee# of $ale, stipulating that the pa0.ent of the 5alance of the purchase price was contingent upon the successful negotiation of a roa# right of wa0 'paragraph ,+5-( an# granting Ro#rigue< the option torescin# 'paragraph %(, were voi# for allege#l0 .a=ing the fulfill.ent of the contract #epen#ent solel0 on the will of Ro#rigueuentl0, Ro#rigueuisition of the roa#-right-of-wa0, in accor#ance with paragraph ! of Article ,,), of the New Civil Co#e. Accor#ingl0, @an o5ligation #epen#ent upon a suspensive con#ition cannot 5e #e.an#e# until after the con#ition ta=es place 5ecause it is onl0 after the fulfill.ent of the con#ition that the o5ligation arises.@ '6avier v+s- CA ,)1 $CRA( A?hi5its G, *, P, R, 3, DD an# 66 show that 69a4/-400 [Ro5r4uate to ren#er it effectual.@+)-$i.ilarl0, un#er the Rules of Court it is prescri5e# that @+i-n the construction of an instru.ent where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possi5le, to 5e a#opte# as will give effect to all@+2- an# @for the proper construction of an instru.ent, the circu.stances un#er which it was .a#e, inclu#ing the situation of the su59ect thereof an# of the parties to it, .a0 5e shown, so that the 9u#ge .a0 5e place# in the position of those whose language he is to interpret.@+"0-Bearing in .in# the afore.entione# interpretative rules, we fin# that the first sentence of paragraph % .ust 5e ta=en in relation with the rest of paragraph % an# with the other provisions of the Con#itional *ee# of $ale.Rea#ing paragraph % in its entiret0 will show that Ro#rigueuire.ent that there shoul# 5e written notice to the ven#or an# the ven#or shall onl0 return Ro#rigue