TOPIC Notion of Estoppel

CASE NO. G.R. No. -GR No. L-214530, 1968

CASE NAME Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
MEMBER Ian Butaslac

DOCTRINE
1. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent
and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
The question whether the court had jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the action or of the
parties, was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not
because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the
reason that such a practice cannot be tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Spouses Tijam filed at the CFI of Cebu to collect a sum of money from spouses Sibonghanoy at P1,908.
This was one month after Judiciary Act of 1948 which states that inferior courts have jurisdiction of
money claims P2000 below. The CFI proceed to hold the case and rendered judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs. The respondents appealed to the CA and was then denied. After getting denied at the CA they
only brought up the question of Jurisdiction then.

Although they were right that the courts had no jurisdiction due to the Judiciary Act of 1948, the parties
are estopped from bringing this question due to the fact that a decision was already issued and that it was
only brought up after getting a result from the Court whose jurisdiction was being questioned.

FACTS
 Spouses Serafin and Felicitas commenced a civil case against spouses Sibonghanoy to recover
from them a sum of P1, 908.00 with legal interest.
 A writ of attachment was issued by the court against the defendants’ properties but the same was
soon dissolved.
 After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and after the same had become
final and executory, the court issued a writ of execution against the defendants.
 The writ being unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of the writ of execution against
the Surety’s bond.
 Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued without
summary hearing. This was denied by the RTC.
 The Surety appealed in the CA, which was denied.
 This time, the surety just asked for an extension in order for them to file the motion for
reconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion for reconsideration, it filed a motion to dismiss
saying that by virtue of R.A. 296 which is the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1948, section 88 of
which placed within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil action where the
value of the subject matter does not exceed P2,000.00.
 The Court of First Instance therefore has no jurisdiction over the case. The question of
jurisdiction was filed by the Surety only 15 years from the time the action was commenced in the
Court of First Instance.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1
 1. W/N the case should be dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction. – NO

RATIO
1. On the issue of W/N the case should be dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction

After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for
the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject
matter is conferred upon the courts exclusive by law as by law and as the lack of it affect the very
authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, a party may be
barred by laches from involving this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling
everything done in the case. A party cannot invoke a court’s jurisdiction and later on deny it to escape a
penalty.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
UPON ALL THE FOREGOING, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed, with
costs against the appellant Manila Surety and Fidelity Company, Inc.