Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jurisdiction Digested Cases
Jurisdiction Digested Cases
Even if
OF APPEALS, and BERNARDO A. ERADEL G.R. No. private respondent actively participated in the proceedings
131282. January 4, 2002 before said court, the doctrine of estoppel cannot still be
properly invoked against him because the question of lack of
FACTS: jurisdiction may be raised at any time and at any stage of
the action. As a general rule, the jurisdiction of a court is not
On June 16, 1995, petitioner filed before the RTC a
a question of acquiescence as a matter of fact, but an issue
complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with
of conferment as a matter of law. Also, neither waiver nor
Damages and Attorney's Fees against private respondent
estoppel shall apply to confer jurisdiction upon a court,
and two others, namely, Apolinario and Inocencio Ruena.
barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances.
Herein private respondent Eradel was declared in default for
Thus, in Javier vs. Court of Appeals: x x x The point
failure to file his answer to the complaint. Thus, petitioner
simply is that when a party commits error in filing his suit or
presented his evidence ex parte and a judgment was
proceeding in a court that lacks jurisdiction to take
rendered in his favor.
cognizance of the same, such act may not at once be
deemed sufficient basis of estoppel. It could have been the
On June 10, 1996, private respondent filed a Motion for
result of an honest mistake, or of divergent interpretations of
New Trial, alleging that he has been occupying the land
doubtful legal provisions.
as a tenant of Artemio Laurente, Sr., since 1958. He
explained that he turned over the complaint and summons
If any fault is to be imputed to a party taking such
to Laurente in the honest belief that as landlord, the latter
course of action, part of the blame should be placed on the
had a better right to the land and was responsible to defend
court which shall entertain the suit, thereby
any adverse claim on it.
lulling the parties into believing that they pursued
However, the trial court denied the motion for new trial.
their remedies in the correct forum. Under the rules, it is the
Meanwhile, RED Conflict Case No.1029, an administrative
duty of the court to dismiss an action 'whenever it appears
case between petitioner and applicant-contestants Romeo,
that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.'
Artemio and Jury Laurente, remained pending with the
(Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court) Should the Court render a
Office of the Regional Director of the Department of
judgment without jurisdiction, such judgment may be
Environment and Natural Resources in Davao City.
impeached or annulled for lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 30, Rule
132, Ibid), within ten (10) years from the finality of the
On July 24, 1996, private respondent filed before the RTC a
same.
Petition for Relief from Judgment, reiterating the same
allegation in his Motion for New Trial. He averred among
The doctrine of estoppel must be applied only in
others that unless there is a determination on who owned
exceptional cases, as its misapplication could result in a
the land, he could not be made to vacate the land.
miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, if the RTC's order were
to be sustained, private respondent would be evicted from
On October 8, 1996, the trial court issued an order denying
the land prematurely, while RED Conflict Case No.1029
the Petition for Relief from Judgment. In a Motion for
would remain unresolved. Such eviction on a technicality if
Reconsideration of said order, private respondent alleged
allowed could result in an injustice, if it is later found that he
that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case, as it was
has a legal right to till the land he now occupies as tenant-
under the jurisdiction of the municipal trial court. The motion
lessee.
for reconsideration was denied by the RTC. On January 22,
1997, petitioner filed a Motion for Execution, which the RTC
granted. On March 12, 1997, private respondent filed his
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court 2. ANTONIO T. DONATO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
of Appeals gave due course to the petition, maintaining that G.R. No. 129638. December 8, 2003
private respondent is not estopped from assailing the
jurisdiction of the RTC. FACTS:
Whether direct resort to the Supreme Court was a proper This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari
rememdy? (as well as of prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction) is not exclusive, but is concurrent
Held: with the RTC and CA in certain cases.
YES.The rule on Hierarchy of courts will not prevent this SC will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress
court from assuming jurisdiction over the case at bar. The desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and
said rule may be relaxed when redress desired cannot be exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the
obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari,
compelling circumstances justify the availment of a remedy calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Petitioner’s
within and calling for the exercise of this court’s primary reliance on Pimentel v. Aguirre is misplaced because the
jurisdiction. It is easy to discern that exceptional non-observance of the hierarchy-of-courts rule was
circumstances exist in the cases at bar that call for the
relaxation of the rule. The present case is of transcendental 7. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs.
importance as it involves the the construction and operation Eddy Ng Kok
of the country’s premier international airport.
Facts: Eddy Ng Kok is a Singaporean businessman who
6. Liga ng mga Barangay vs Atienza
purchased a Condominium Unit located at Valle Verde
Facts: Terraces from the Petitioner. Kok paid the reservation fee
then later on, paid 90% of the purchase price. Petitioner
Liga is the national organization of all the barangays in the through its president executed a Contract to sell in favor of
Philippines, which pursuant to Section 492 of RA No. 7160 Kok which states that the Condominium will be completed
(LGC), constitutes the duly elected presidents of highly- and delivered to the Respondent within 15 months from
urbanized cities, provincial chapters, the metropolitan Manila
February 1989 or on May 8, 1990. In April 1990 Kok went
Chapter, and metropolitan political subdivision chapters.
back to the Philippines for the Unit only to find out that the
Section 493 of that law provides that “the liga at the turnover was reset to May 31, 1990. In July of the same
municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political subdivision, year, Kok again went back to the Philippines but the Unit
was still uninhabitable for lack of electricity and water eventual conversion or reclassification from forest to
facilities, that the petitioner informed Kok that he will move agricultural land, and thereafter for Katon to apply for
in on August 1990. Again, Kok went back on October 1990 homestead patent.
and learned that the unit was still unlovable.
Then, in 1965, the Director of Forestry informed the
Kok sent the petitioner a demand letter for damages he Director of Lands, that since the subject land was no longer
incurred which the latter ignored. This prompted Kok to file a needed for forest purposes, the same is therefore certified
and released as agricultural land for disposition under the
complaint for specific performance and damages before the
Public Land Act.
RTC of Makati.
However, there were also several favorable
Nevertheless, during the pendency of the action, Kok
endorsements that were made to survey the island under
occupied the Unit, thus his cause of action was limited for the request of herein respondents. Then, the records show
damages. that, on November 8, 1996, one of the respondents Juan
Fresnillo filed a homestead patent application for the portion
Judgment was rendered by the RTC in favor of Kok, which of the island consisiting of 8.5 hectares and the respondent
was affirmed by the CA. Petitioner filed a motion for Jesus Gapilango filed a homestead application on June 8,
reconsideration but the same was denied by the appellate 1972. The respondent Manuel Palanca, Jr. was issued a
court, hence a petition for review on certiorari with the Homestead Patent No. 14527 and OCT No. G-7098 on March
3, 1875 with an area of 6.84 hectares of Sombrero Island.
Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the RTC of Makati has Jurisdiction over the Petitioner assails the validity of the homestead
case. patents and original certificates of title covering certain
portions of Sombrero Island issued in favor of respondents
on the ground that the same were obtained through fraud.
Held:On petitioner’s contention that the trial court has no
Petitioner prays for the reconveyance of the whole island in
jurisdiction over the instant case, Section 1 (c) of his favor.
Presidential Decree No. 1344, as amended, it is the HLURB
which has jurisdiction over the instant case. The complaints The petitioner seeks to nullify the homestead
for specific performance with damages by a lot or patents and original certificates of title issued in favor of the
condominium unit buyer against the owner or developer falls respondents covering certain portions of the Sombrero
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. Island as well as the reconveyance of the whole island in his
favor. The petitioner claims that he has the exclusive right to
While it may be true that the trial court is without file an application for homestead patent over the whole
jurisdiction over the case, petitioners active island since it was he who requested for its conversion from
forest land to agricultural land.
participation in the proceedings estopped it from
assailing such lack of it. We have held that it is an
Respondents aver that they are all bona fide and
undesirable practice of a party participating in the
lawful possessors of their respective portions and have
proceedings and submitting its case for decision and
declared said portions for taxation purposes and that they
then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and have been faithfully paying taxes thereon for twenty years.
attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.
Respondents contend that the petitioner has no
Here, petitioner failed to raise the question of jurisdiction legal capacity to sue insofar as the island is concerned
before the trial court and the Appellate Court. In effect, because an action for reconveyance can only be brought by
petitioner confirmed and ratified the trial courts jurisdiction the owner and not a mere homestead applicant and that
over this case. Certainly, it is now in estoppel and can no petitioner is guilty of estoppel by laches for his failure to
longer question the trial courts jurisdiction. assert his right over the land for an unreasonable and
unexplained period of time.
8. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sardillo
Respondents filed their Answer with Special and/or
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim in due time. On June
30, 1999, they also filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
9. KATON vs. PALANCA of the alleged defiance by petitioner of the trial court’s Order
G.R. No. 151149 to amend his Complaint so he could thus effect a
September 7, 2004 substitution by the legal heirs of the deceased, Respondent
Gapilango.The Motion to Dismiss was granted by the RTC in
DISMISSAL; MOTU PROPRIO; RESIDUAL its Order dated July 29, 1999.
JURISDICTION; RESIDUAL PREROGATIVE
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the July
29, 1999 Order was denied by the trial court in its Resolution
FACTS: dated December 17, 1999, for being a third and prohibited
motion. In his Petition for Certiorari before the CA,
petitioner charged the trial court with grave abuse of
On August 2, 1963, herein petitioner George Katon
discretion on the ground that the denied Motion was his first
filed a request with the District Office of the Bureau of
and only Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Order.
Forestry in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, for the re-classification
of a piece of real property known as Sombrero Island,
located in Tagpait, Aborlan, Palawan for the purpose of
Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint because due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of
of prescription invoking residual prerogative. the other parties.
"x x x [T]he motu proprio dismissal of a case was The CA’s motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s
traditionally limited to instances when the court Complaint could not have been based, therefore, on residual
clearly had no jurisdiction over the subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 41. Undeniably, such order of
and when the plaintiff did not appear during trial, dismissal was not one for the protection and preservation of
failed to prosecute his action for an unreasonable the rights of the parties, pending the disposition of the case
length of time or neglected to comply with the on appeal. What the CA referred to as residual prerogatives
rules or with any order of the court. Outside of were the general residual powers of the courts to dismiss an
these instances, any motu proprio dismissal would action motu proprio upon the grounds mentioned in Section
amount to a violation of the right of the plaintiff to 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and under authority of
be heard. Except for qualifying and expanding Section 2 of Rule 1 of the same rules.
Section 2, Rule 9, and Section 3, Rule 17, of the
Revised Rules of Court, the amendatory 1997
To be sure, the CA had the excepted instances in
Rules of Civil Procedure brought about no radical
mind when it dismissed the Complaint motu proprio "on
change. Under the new rules, a court may motu
more fundamental grounds directly bearing on the lower
proprio dismiss a claim when it appears from the
court’s lack of jurisdiction" and for prescription of the action.
pleadings or evidence on record that it has no
Indeed, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject
jurisdiction over the subject matter; when there is
matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.
another cause of action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or where the
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute
of limitations. x x x."12 (Italics supplied)
10. FIGUEROA vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 147406
On the other hand, "residual jurisdiction" is embodied in
July 14, 2008
Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as follows:
ESTOPPEL;
"SEC. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. – A
party’s appeal by notice of appeal is deemed
FACTS:
perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of
appeal in due time.
On July 8, 1994, an information for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide was filed against the petitioner before
"A party’s appeal by record on appeal is deemed
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan, Branch 18. The
perfected as to him with respect to the subject
merits ensued and on August 19, 1998, the trial court
matter thereof upon the approval of the record on
convicted the petitioner as charged. In his appeal before the
appeal filed in due time.
CA, the petitioner questioned, among others, for the first
time, the trial court’s jurisdiction.
"In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the
The appellate court, however, in the challenged decision,
appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the
considered the petitioner to have actively participated in the
time to appeal of the other parties.
trial and to have belatedly attacked the jurisdiction of the
RTC; thus, he was already estopped by laches from asserting
"In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction.
jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof
upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in
ISSUE: Said funds were for the renovation of the Vinzons
Hall of the University of the Philippines which will be
Whether or not the active participation of the Figueroa in renamed as "President Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall.
the trial of the case, which was initiated not by him but the However, the said project did not materialize prompting the
public prosecutor constitutes laches in relation to the succeeding student regent to file a case against her.
doctrine laid down in Tijam vs. Sabonghanoy?
Petitioner moved to quash the information.
12. Pat-og Sr. vs Civil Service Commission Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed
over the same parties or subject matter at the same time by
FACTS: two or more separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon
a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
Robert Bang-on (Bang-on), then a 14-year old involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such
second year high school student of the Antadao National jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body
High School in Sagada, Mountain Province, filed an affidavit- is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case,
complaint against Pat-og, a third year high school teacher of both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.
the same school, before the Civil Service Commission- Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the
Cordillera Administrative Region (CSC-CAR) for misconduct body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall
and a criminal case against Pat-og for the crime of Less exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
Serious Physical Injury with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bontoc, Mountain Province. Ruling of the CSC-CAR: In its
Decision, dated September 19, 2006, the CSC-CAR found 13. BOSTON EQUITY vs. CA
Pat-og guilty of Simple Misconduct. G.R. No. 173946
June 19, 2013
On December 11, 2006, the motion for 699 SCRA 16
reconsideration filed by Pat-og was denied for lack of merit.
FACTS:
The Ruling of the CSC: In its Resolution, dated April
On 24 December 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for
11, 2007, the CSC dismissed Pat-og’s appeal and affirmed
sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
with modification the decision of the CSC-CAR and adjudged
preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and
Pat-og guilty of grave misconduct. Pat-og filed a motion for
Lolita Toledo. The respondent Lolita Toledo filed an Answer
reconsideration, questioning for the first time the jurisdiction
dated 19 March 1998 but on 7 May 1998, she filed a Motion
of CSC over the case. He contended that administrative
for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged,
charges against a public school teacher should have been
among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel
initially heard by a committee to be constituted pursuant to
Toledo (Manuel), is already dead. The death certificate of
the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. CA affirmed the
Manuel states “13 July 1995” as the date of death.
resolutions of the CSC. It agreed that Pat-og was estopped
from questioning the jurisdiction of the CSC as the records As a result, petitioner filed a motion, dated 5 August
clearly showed that he actively participated in the 1999, to require respondent to disclose the heirs of Manuel.
proceedings. In compliance with the verbal order of the court during the
11 October 1999 hearing of the case, respondent submitted
CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
the required names and addresses of the heirs. Petitioner
Pat-og. Hence, the present petition with the following
then filed a Motion for Substitution, dated 18 January 2000,
praying that Manuel be substituted by his children as party-
ISSUE:
defendants. It appears that this motion was granted by the
WON CSC has jurisdiction over the administrative case filed trial court in an Order dated 9 October 2000.
against Pat-og?
Pre-trial thereafter ensued and on 18 July 2001, the trial It should be stressed that when the complaint was filed,
court issued its pre-trial order containing, among others, the defendant Manuel S. Toledo was already dead. The
dates of hearing of the case. The trial of the case then complaint should have impleaded the estate of Manuel S.
proceeded. Herein petitioner, as plaintiff, presented its Toledo as defendant, not only the wife, considering that the
evidence and its exhibits were thereafter admitted. On 26 estate of Manuel S. Toledo is an indispensable party, which
May 2004, the reception of evidence for herein respondent stands to be benefited or be injured in the outcome of the
was cancelled upon agreement of the parties. case.
On 24 September 2004, counsel for herein respondent The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for
was given a period of fifteen days within which to file a reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
demurrer to evidence. However, on 7 October 2004,
respondent instead filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, ISSUES:
citing the following as grounds: (1) that the complaint failed
1. Whether or not Lolita Toledo is already estopped
to implead an indispensable party or a real party in interest;
from questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction?
hence, the case must be dismissed for failure to state a
2. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over
cause of action; (2) that the trial court did not acquire
Manuel Toledo?
jurisdiction over the person of Manuel pursuant to Section 5,
3. Whether or not the estate of Manuel Toledo is an
Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court; (3) that the trial court
indispensible party?
erred in ordering the substitution of the deceased Manuel by
4. Whether or not the inclusion of Manuel as party-
his heirs; and (4) that the court must also dismiss the case
defendant is a mere misjoinder of party not warranting
against Lolita Toledo in accordance with Section 6, Rule 86
the dismissal of the case before the lower court?
of the Rules of Court.
HELD:
The trial court, in an Order dated 8 November 2004,
denied the motion to dismiss for having been filed out of
1. No.
time, citing Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Court
which states that: “[W]ithin the time for but before filing the Petitioner’s argument that respondent’s motion to
answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a dismiss questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction was filed
motion to dismiss may be made.” more than six years after her amended answer was filed.
Further, respondent had several opportunities, at various
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the order of
stages of the proceedings, to assail the trial court’s
denial was likewise denied on the ground that “defendants’
jurisdiction but never did so for six straight years. This
attack on the jurisdiction of this Court is now barred by
argument is misplaced because it failed to consider that
estoppel by laches” since respondent failed to raise the issue
jurisdiction has several aspects. The aspect of jurisdiction
despite several chances to do so.
which may be barred from being assailed as a result of
estoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court seriously
The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred
erred and gravely abused its discretion in denying her
from being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is
motion to dismiss despite discovery, during the trial of the
jurisdiction over the subject matter. In Tijam, the case relied
case, of evidence that would constitute a ground for
upon by petitioner, the issue involved was the authority of
dismissal of the case.
the then Court of First Instance to hear a case for the
collection of a sum of money in the amount of P1,908.00
The Court of Appeals granted the petition on the ground
which amount was, at that time, within the exclusive original
that when Boston filed the complaint, defendant Manuel S.
jurisdiction of the municipal courts. In subsequent cases
Toledo was already dead. Such being the case, the court a
citing the ruling of the Court in Tijam, what was likewise at
quo could not have acquired jurisdiction over the person of
issue was the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject
defendant Manuel S. Toledo. Thus, the court’s denial of the
matter of the case.
motion to dismiss as based on the attack on the jurisdiction
of the court.
Accordingly, in Spouses Gonzaga v. Court of
Appeals, 394 SCRA 472 (2002), the issue for consideration
The CA also held that the attack on the jurisdiction of
was the authority of the regional trial court to hear and
the court is not barred by laches, despite her active
decide an action for reformation of contract and damages
participation on the proceedings. It is well-settled that issue
involving a subdivision lot, it being argued therein that
on jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding,
jurisdiction is vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
even for the first time on appeal. By timely raising the issue
Board pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and
on jurisdiction in her motion to dismiss is not estopped from
Condominium Buyers Protective Decree). In Lee v. Presiding
raising the question on jurisdiction. Moreover, when issue on
Judge, MTC, Legaspi City, 145 SCRA 408 (1986), petitioners
jurisdiction was raised by respondent, the court a quo had
argued that the respondent municipal trial court had no
not yet decided the case, hence, there is no basis for the
jurisdiction over the complaint for ejectment because the
court a quo to invoke estoppel to justify its denial of the
issue of ownership was raised in the pleadings.
motion for reconsideration.
Finally, in People v. Casuga, 53 SCRA 278 (1973), determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and
accused-appellant claimed that the crime of grave slander, of good conscience. It has also been considered that an
which she was charged, falls within the concurrent indispensable party is a person in whose absence there
jurisdiction of municipal courts or city courts and the then cannot be a determination between the parties already
courts of first instance, and that the judgment of the court of before the court which is effective, complete or equitable.”
first instance, to which she had appealed the municipal Further, an indispensable party is one who must be included
court’s conviction, should be deemed null and void for want in an action before it may properly proceed.
of jurisdiction as her appeal should have been filed with the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. On the other hand, a “person is not an
indispensable party if his interest in the controversy or
In all of these cases, the Supreme Court barred the subject matter is separable from the interest of the other
attack on the jurisdiction of the respective courts concerned parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously
over the subject matter of the case based on estoppel by affected by a decree which does complete justice between
laches, declaring that parties cannot be allowed to belatedly them. Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his
adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of presence would merely permit complete relief between him
a court to which they submitted their cause voluntarily. or her and those already parties to the action, or if he or she
has no interest in the subject matter of the action.” It is not
Here, what respondent was questioning in her a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an
motion to dismiss before the trial court was that court’s indispensable party simply because his or her presence will
jurisdiction over the person of defendant Manuel. Thus, the avoid multiple litigations.
principle of estoppel by laches finds no application in this
case. Instead, the principles relating to jurisdiction over the Applying the foregoing pronouncements to the case
person of the parties are pertinent herein. at bar, it is clear that the estate of Manuel is not an
indispensable party to the collection case, for the simple
If the objection to the jurisdiction is not raised reason that the obligation of Manuel and his wife,
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, the objection respondent herein, is solidary. Based on the provisions and
to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the stipulations of the contract were then followed by the
defendant is deemed waived. Since the defense of lack of respective signatures of respondent as “MAKER” and her
jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one of husband as “CO-MAKER.” Thus, pursuant to Article 1216 of
those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section the Civil Code, petitioner may collect the entire amount of
1 of Rule 9, such defense must be invoked when an answer the obligation from respondent only. The aforementioned
or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver of provision states: “The creditor may proceed against any one
the defense. If the objection is not raised either in a motion of the solidary debtors or some or all of them
to dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the jurisdiction simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall
over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be
waived by virtue of the first sentence of the above-quoted directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been
Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. fully collected.”