SUBJECT:CIVPRO Jurisdiction over Subject Matter

Cudiamat vs Batangas Savings & Loan Bank

(GR 182403, March 9 2010)
FACTS:
1. August 9, 1999, petitioner CUDIAMAT filed a
complaint for quieting of title with damages
before
the
BALAYAN-RTC
against
the
Respondent BANK. BALAYAN-RTC decided in
favor of CUDIAMAT.
2. Respondent BANK appealed to the CA
contending that BALAYAN-RTC had NO
jurisdiction since the BANK had been placed
under receivership of the subject property and
the adjudication of claims against it was
already lodged with the liquidation court
NASUGBU-RTC via petition for assistance in
the liquidation.
3. Petitioner CUDIAMAT argued that the BANK is
estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of
BALAYAN-RTC because it actively participated
in the proceedings thereat.
ISSUE:
W/N Respondent BANK is estopped from assailing
the jurisdiction of BALAYAN-RTC.
HELD:
YES. Estoppel bars the bank from raising the
issue of lack of jurisdiction of the BALAYAN RTC.
The operation of estoppel on the question of
jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether the
lower court actually had jurisdiction or not.
1. If it had NO JURISDICTION
but the case was tried and decided upon
the theory that it had jurisdiction,
the parties are NOT barred, on appeal,
from assailing such jurisdiction.

2. If it HAD JURISDICTION
and the case was tried and decided upon
the theory that it had NO jurisdiction
the party who induced it to adopt such
theory will NOT be permitted, on appeal,
to assume an inconsistent position,
that the lower court had jurisdiction.
-

The BALAYAN-RTC, sitting as a court of general

jurisdiction,
had
jurisdiction
over
the
complaint of quieting of title filed by
CUDIAMAT on Aug 9, 1999.
The NASUGBU-RTC, as a liquidation court,
assumed jurisdiction only on May 25, 2000,
when the petition for assistance in the
liquidation was raffled thereat and given due
course.
GR: While it is well-settled that lack of
jurisdiction on the subject matter can be
raised at any time and is NOT lost by estoppel
by laches,
This case is an EXCEPTION.
o To compel petitioners to re-file and
relitigate their claims before the
NASUGBU-RTC when the parties
had already been given the
opportunity
to
present
their
respective evidence in a full-blown
trial before the BALAYAN-RTC,
which had, in fact, decided
CUDIAMATs complaint (about 2
years before the CA rendered the
assailed decision) would be an
exercise in futility and would
unjustly burden the CUDIAMATs.