DUERO VS.

CA
G. R. No. 131282 January 4, 2002

FACTS

On June 16, 1995, petitioner Duero filed with the RTC an

action for Recovery of Possession and Ownership of a parcel of land
with an assessed value of P5,240 against respondent Eradel. When
Eradel failed to file his answer within the prescribed period, the RTC
declared him in default and rendered a judgment adverse to him.

Eradel filed a motion for new trial with the RTC which the
latter denied. Later, Eradel filed a petition for relief from judgment
which the RTC also denied. In his motion for reconsideration of the
order denying his petition for relief from judgment, Eradel raised for
the first time the issue of the RTCs lack of jurisdiction over the
action. He contended that since the assessed value of the real property
involved was P5,240, the action was within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MTC. The RTC denied Eradels motion for
reconsideration.

On March 12, 1997, Eradel filed with the CA a petition for

certiorari. The CA granted Eradels petition and set aside the
judgment of the RTC.

In a petition for certiorari dated September 17, 1997 filed with

the SC, Duero argued that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion
when it set aside the judgment of the RTC and allowed Eradel to raise
the issue of its lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

WON the CA gravely abused its discretion when it held that

Eradel was not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC
after filing several motions before it.
 RULING

A courts lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived or cured by a

partys act, omission, silence, acquiescence or even by his express
consent. Further, a party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over
the action at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal.

Even if Eradel actively participated in the proceeding in the

RTC, the doctrine of estoppel cannot yet apply to him because the
question of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time and at any
stage of the action.

The ruling in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy cannot apply in the present

case because the facts in the two cases are substantially different. In
the Tijam case, the petitioner raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of
the trial course only after the CA had rendered a judgment against
him. In the present case, Eradel raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction
even when the action was still with the RTC.