Tijam v. Sibonghanoy G.R. No.

L-
21450 April 15, 1968 Estoppel by
laches
MARCH 12, 2019

FACTS:

The spouses Tijam filed a case against the spouses Sibonghanoy to recover the sum
of P1,908.00, with legal interest, plus costs.

A writ of attachment was issued by the court against defendants’ properties, but the
same was dissolved upon the filing of a counter-bond by defendants and the
Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. (Surety).

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 having been returned unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of
a writ of execution against the Surety’s bond. The Surety filed its opposition on
these grounds: (1) Failure to prosecute and (2) Absence of a demand upon the
Surety for the payment of the amount due under the judgment.

Thereafter the necessary demand was made, and upon failure of the Surety to
satisfy the judgment, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for execution against the
counterbond.

Upon failure of Surety to file an answer, the Court granted the motion for
execution and the corresponding writ was issued.

Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued without the
required summary hearing provided for in Section 17 of Rule 59 of the Rules of
Court. As the Court denied the motion, the Surety appealed to the CA.
The CA affirmed the order appealed from.

Five days after the Surety received notice of the decision, it filed a motion asking
for extension of time within which to file a motion for reconsideration.

The CA granted the motion.

Two days later the Surety filed a MOTION TO DISMISS, alleging:

that appellee’s action was filed in the CFI for the recovery of the sum of P1,908.00
only;

that a month before that date Republic Act No. 296, otherwise known as the
Judiciary Act of 1948, had already become effective, Section 88 of which placed
within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions where
the value of the subject-matter or the amount of the demand does not exceed
P2,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs;

that the CFI therefore had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

The CA required the appellees to answer the motion to dismiss, but they failed to
do so.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Surety can raise the question of lack of jurisdiction for the first
time on appeal.

RULING:

The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts
exclusively by law, and as the lack of it affects 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 case, We are of
the opinion that the Surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea at this
late hour for the purpose of annuling everything done heretofore in the case with
its active participation.

The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party, it
could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the CFI to take
cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which,
according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of
inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the
court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said
courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on
the merits.

It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the CA that it finally woke
up to raise the question of jurisdiction.

A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and
for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by
record, and of estoppel by laches.

Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and

unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

The doctrine of laches or of “stale demands” is based upon grounds of public

policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims
and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is
principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to
be enforced or asserted.

It has been held that a party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a court to sure
affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such
relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.

The Court frowns upon the “undesirable practice” of a party submitting his case for
decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for
lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.
Petitioner insists that the respondent court acquired no jurisdiction over the person of
respondent Bubla. We find this to be without merit. It is settled law in this jurisdiction that a court
may acquire jurisdiction over the person of a party either by his voluntary appearance in court
demanding affirmative relief or by having him served. With summons within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Philippines. Bubla was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 33461 filed against the
herein petitioner. By filing his complaint, therefore, Bubla submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction
of the respondent court and the latter acquired such jurisdiction even if, as a matter of fact,
Bubla had never been able to enter the Philippines.

The RTC has jurisdiction over disputes

concerning the application of the
Civil Code

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and

determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings
before a court belong.[28] It is conferred by law. The allegations in
the complaint and the status or relationship of the parties
determine which court has jurisdiction over the nature of an
action.[29] The same test applies in ascertaining whether a case
involves an intra-corporate controversy.[30]

The CA correctly ruled that the RTC has jurisdiction over the
present case. Joy Training seeks to nullify the sale of the real
properties on the ground that there was no contract of agency
between Joy Training and the spouses Johnson. This was beyond
the ambit of the SEC's original and exclusive jurisdiction prior to
the enactment of Republic Act No. 8799 which only took effect on
August 3, 2000. The determination of the existence of a contract
of agency and the validity of a contract of sale requires the
application of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. It is a well-
settled rule that "[d]isputes concerning the application of the Civil
Code are properly cognizable by courts of general
jurisdiction."[31] Indeed, no special skill requiring the SEC's
technical expertise is necessary for the disposition of this issue
and of this case.