The TENANTS attempt to hold on to the property subject of the instant unlawful detainer case, by

resorting to fraudulent machinations such as refusing to receive the notices to vacate, must not be
countenanced. His stubborn refusal to receive the notices to vacate should not prejudice the right of
the lessor-respondent, to use and enjoy the fruits of his property.

In this case, there is nothing in the Contract of Lease which grants petitioner preferential right to buy
the subject premises. We are likewise unaware of any applicable law which vests upon him priority
right to buy the commercial building subject matter of this case. In fact, aside from the sweeping
statement that his preferential right to buy was violated, petitioner failed to cite in his
Petition,39 Reply,40 or Memorandum41 any specific provision of a law granting him such right. In other
words, petitioner failed to lay the basis for his claim that he enjoys a preferential right to buy.

When the same property was donated to respondents, petitioners were allowed to continue
occupying the subject lot since respondents did not as yet have the money to build a house of their
own.  But now that respondents have sufficient money to build their own house, petitioners still
1avvphi1

rebuff respondents’ demand to vacate the premises and to remove or demolish their house.

Veritably, it is a settled rule in our jurisdiction that a notarized document has in its favor the
presumption of regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution. It is admissible in evidence and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. 1

The rule is settled, impelled by basic requirements of due process, that points of law, theories,
issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower court will not be ordinarily
considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 2 As the issue of
the applicability of R.A. No. 1162, as amended, was neither averred in the pleadings nor raised
during the trial below, the same cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

An assiduous review of the subject instrument would show that deed 

The following ruling of the Court in Alejandro v. Judge Geraldez40 is illuminating:

1
Ilao-Quianay v. Mapile, G.R. No. 154087, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 246, 255; 510 Phil.
736,747 (2005).
2
Natalia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116216, June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 527, 538-539