LAMSIS vs.

DONG-E
GR No. 173021 October 20, 2010
Del Castillo
SUBJECT:
FACTS:
This case involves a conflict of ownership and possession over an
untitled parcel of land.
Petitioners are the actual occupants of the subject land and respondent
is claiming ownership thereof and is seeking to recover its possession
from petitioners.
According to respondent, her familys ownership and occupation of the
land can be traced as far back as 1922 to her late grandfather, Ap-ap.
Upon Ap-aps death, the property was inherited by his children, who
obtained a survey plan and declared the property for tax purposes in
the name of Teirs of Ap-ap.
The heirs of Ap-ap then executed a deed of quitclaim in favor of
respondents father.
That the heirs of Gilbert Semon tolerated the acts of their first cousins,
petitioners in-laws, to stay on a Lot No. 1 together with their
respective families.
When Gilbert Semon died, his children extrajudicially partitioned the
property among themselves and allotted Lot No. 1 in favor of
Margarita.
When the petitioner began expanding their occupation on the subject
property and selling portions thereof, Margarita filed a complaint for
recovery of ownership, possession, reconveyance, and damages.
RTC: preponderates in favor of respondents long-time possession of and
claim of ownership over the subject property. The survey plan, tax
declarations, and the documentary evidence of the transfer of the land from
the heirs of ap-ap to respondent father were given credence.
CA: Ruled that the respondent was able to discharge her burden in proving
her title and interest to the subject property.
ISSUE:
(1) WON appellate court disregarded material facts and circumstances in
affirming the trial courts decision
(2) WON petitioner have acquired the subject property by prescription
(3) WON the ancestral land claim pending before the National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) should take precedence over the
reivindicatory action.
(4) WON the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the case in light of the
effectivity of RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of
1997 at the time that the complaint was instituted.
HELD:
(1)Asda
(2)Asda
(3)No.
(4)Yes.

As a general rule, an objection over subject-matter may be raised any time

of the proceedings. This is because jurisdiction cannot be waived by the
parties or vested by the agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is vested by
law, which prevailed at the time of the filing of the complaint.
However, an exception to this rule has been carved by jurisprudence. In
Tajim v. Sibonghanoy, the court ruled that the existence of laches will
prevent a party from raising the courts lack of jurisdiction. Laches is defined
as the 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 the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned or declined it.
In the case at bar, the application of the Tijam doctrine is called for because
of the presence of laches cannot be ignored.
At the time the complaint was file in 1998, the IPRA was already in effect but
the petitioners never raised the same as a ground for dismissal; instead they
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the value of the property did not
meet the jurisdictional value for the RTC. They obviously neglected to take
the IPRA into consideration.
It is only before the SC, 8 years after the filing of the complaint, after the trial
court had already conducted a full-blown trial and rendered a decision on the
merits, after the appellate court had made a thorough review of the records,
and after petitioner have twice encountered adverse decision from the trial
and the appellate courts that petitioner now want to expunge all the efforts
that have gone into the litigation and resolution of their case and start of
over again.