Bernardo v Heirs of Villegas

GR 183357 / Perez

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to assail CA Decision

Facts
-RESP filed complaint for accion publiciana against PETs. RESPs earlier filed
ejectment case agaist PET with MTC which was dismissed on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction for having been filed beyond one yr prescriptive period for filing a
forcible entry case
RESPs alleged that their father is the owner of a parcel of land and that PET, by
stealth, surreptitiously entered into possession of a portion of RESPs land, and
unlawfully possessed and continue to possess the property and had refused to
vacate
-RESP alleged that RTC lacked jurisdiction
-RTC ruled in favour of RESPS, and that the accion publiciana suit is within its
jurisdiction
-CA affirmed RTC, ruling that PET is estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction
because he failed to file MTD on such ground and instead actively participated in
the proceedings before RTC
PET says: TC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter for failure of RESPS to
allege the assessed value of the property; that CA is wrong in saying that he failed
to raise objections before TC; that he raised the defense of lack of jurisdiction as
early in his Answer; that even if he did not raise the defense of lack of jurisdiction,
TC should have dismissed motu propio; that the doctrine of estoppel by laches is not
applicable to him since he raised the issue of jurisdiction not only in his answer but
also in his appeal
Issue
WON estoppel bars PET from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction? YES
Held
-GR: jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings
-EXC: estoppel, when a party participates in all stages of a case before challenging
the jurisdiction of the lower court
-one cannot belatedly reject or repudiate its decision after voluntarily
submitting to its
jurisdiction, just to secure affirmative relief against ones
opponent or after failing to obtain
such relief.

The principle of justice and equity in Tijam v Siboghanoy should be applied

-MTC dismissed the ejectment case upon its ruling that the case is for accion
publiciana. It did not assert jurisdiction even if it could have done so based on the
assessed value of the property. PET did not bring up the issue of jurisdictional
amount. He considered the dismissal to be in his favor.
-When, as a result of dismissal, RESPs brought the case as accion publiciana before
RTC, PET never brought up the issue of jurisdictional amount. What he
mentioned in his Answer before RTC was the generally phrased allegation that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. That general assertion, which lacks
basis, is insufficient.
-PET failed to point out the omission of the assessed value in the complaint. PET
actively participated during trial by adducing evidence and filing
pleadings, none of which mentioned any defect in the jurisdiction of RTC.
-It was only on appeal before CA, after he obtained adverse judgment in TC, that
PET, for the first time, came up with the argument that the decision is void
because there was no allegation in the complaint about the value of the
property. PET is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC.
-the RTC and CA decisions discussed extensively the merits of the case which has
been pending for nearly 10 yrs. If the Court were to acceded to PETs prayer, all the
effort, time and expenses of the parties would be wasted.
-The technical Report on Verification Survey which formed part of the records,
contained a tax dec indicating that the property has an assessed value of
P110,220.00. Under RA 7691, RTC has in fact jurisdiction over the subject matter.
-Since the MTC decision proclaimed that the case is one for accion publiciana and
the assessed value of the property as evidenced by the case records, jurisdiction
rightfully pertains with the RTC.
Petition denied. CA decision affirming the RTC judgment is affirmed