Ruiz v. Caneba GR No.

84884 December 3, 1990 Facts: Petitioners spouses Ruiz, leased the premises of common-lawspouses Sangalang and Cruz. Later on, the co-owners decided to sell the leased promises to the lessees for and in consideration of 175K payable in installments subject to such conditions as the continuation of payment of monthly rentals by the lessee-buyers until the full amount is paid, and an stipulation that the contracts would be subject to rescision in the event the lessee-buyers would default in the payment of the agreed priceupon rescision, the supposed lesseebuyers should return the amount advanced to the lessor-sellers while the former vacates the property. The petitioners defaulted payments so the parties rescinded the contract but could not however agree as to the amount. The lessee-buyers asked for 24% per annum interests on the amount advanced by them to the co-owners, while the latter, on the other hand, asked for the additional rentals for another portion of the property which the petitioner had already been using since the execution of the contract, these issues was however raised after judgment had been entered and writ of execution issued. Issue: Should awards by courts be subject to legal interests however the judgment did not provide for such? Held: No. Anent the Ruizes' claim of interest as aforementioned, it has been held in the case of Santulan v. Fule, 133 SCRA 762 (1984) that where the court judgment which did not provide for interest is already final, there is no reason to add interest in the judgment. Interest was not demanded by the Ruizes when the case was pending before the lower court, hence, there is no reason for Supreme Court to grant such claim. As ruled by the Court, such claim is groundless since the decision and orders sought to be enforced do not direct the payment of interest and have long become final (Canonizado v. Ordoez-Benitez, 149 SCRA 555 [1987]). Finally, as to Sangalang's claim for P1,500.00 as monthly rental for Door No. 2, the records show that such claim was never raised in the trial court. The issue of additional rentals was brought up by Sangalang only when the motion for execution of par. 3 of the dispositive portion of the decision was filed by the Ruiz spouses (Rollo, p. 189). It is a basic rule that an issue which was not raised in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. Ruiz vs. Caneba

(191 SCRA 865)Where the courts judgment which did not provide forthe payment of interest has already become final, no interest may be awarded.