Serafin Tijam vs.
Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucia subject-matter or the amount does not exceed 2000
Baguio, Manila Surety and Fidelity Co.
Barely one month (July 1948) after the effectivity
of Judiciary Act of 1948, Sps. Serafin Tijam/Felicitas
Tagalog commenced a civil action with RTC against SPS.
Sibonghanoy/Baguio to recover from them the sum of
1908 pesos.
A writ of attachment was issued by the court
against the defendant’s properties, but the same was
dissolved upon the filing of a counterbond by defendants
and the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co.
After trial, 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 was unsatisfied so the
plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of execution
against the Surety’s bond. The surety filed a written
opposition upon two grounds: 1) failure to prosecute and
2) absence of a demand upon the surety for the payment
of the amount due under the judgment. It prayed that
the Court deny the motion for exeution against its
counterbond nad to relieve the company of its liability.
The Court denied the motion (for execution) on the
ground that no previous demand had been made on the
Surety for the satisfaction of the judgment. Thus, the
necessary demand was made, and upon failure of the
Surety to satisfy the judgment, a second motion for
execution was filed against the counterbond. The court
granted the motion for execution.
The Surety moved to quash the writ on the
ground that the same was issued without summary
hearing prvided for in Section 17 of Rule 59 of the Rules
of Court. The Motion to Quash was denied by the Court
of First Instance. It was appealed to the CA. Note, none
of the issues raised in the appeal with the CA raised the
question of lack of jurisdiction, neither directly nor
indirectly. The CA affirmed.
Surety filed a MOTION TO DISMISS this time,
alleging substantially that Surety’s action was filed with
the CFI on July 1948 for the recovery of the sum 1908
pesos only; that a month before that date, Judiciary Act
of 1948 had already become effective nad Section 88 of
which placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of
inferior courts all civil actions where the value of the
pesos. Thus, CFI had no jurisdiction.
Issue: WON the CFI had lacked jurisdiction?
Ruling: It is undisputed that the action commenced by
Tijam against Sibonghanoy spouses was for the recovery
of the sum of 1908 pesos- an amount within the original
exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts in accordance
with the Judiciary Act which had taken effect about a
month prior to the date when the action was
commenced.
However, considering the facts and
circumstances in this case, Surety is now barred by
laches from invoking this plea at this late hour for the
purpose of annulling everything done herefore . The
action was commenced in the CFI on July 1948, 15 years
before the Surety filed its motion to dismiss raising the
question of lack of jurisdiction for the first time.
Surety became a quasi party since July 1948 when it filed
a counterbond for the dissolution of the writ issued by
the court of origin. Since then, it acquired certain rights
and assumed specific obligations in connection with the
pending case, in accordance with the Rules of Court.
A party cannot 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 the same jurisdiction.
Francel Realty Corporation vs. Ricardo Sycip
Petitioner Francel Realty filed an illegal detainer
case against Sycip before the MTC of Bacoor, Cavite
which was dismissed accordingly by the MTC. It was a
blatant attempt by petitioner to convent the law as
under PD 957, a complaint arising from the failture of a
buyer on instalment basis to pay based on a right to
stop monthly amortizations, the determinative question
is exclusively cognizable by the HLURB.
Facts:
Petitioner and respondent entered into a
contract to sell a house and lot. Sycip made a DP of 119k
pesos. The townhouse subject of the contract to sell was
transferred in the name of Sycip but despite this, he
refused to pay the balance of 250k. By applying the DP to
his monthly rental, said amount was reduced to nothing.
He refused to pay despite several demands.
Sycip filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction but the court (RTC) denied the motion
stating that the ground relied upon by Sycip did not
appear to be indubitable. Sycip again invoked the court’ s
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Further, there is a pending case between the same
parties and involving the same townhouse before the
HLURB. After trial, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
executed by the Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan in favor
of Independent Mercantile Corporation also stated that
the sale referred only to the rights and interests of
Manuel Magali over the land. Manuel was one of the
several children of Domingo Magali who had died in
1940.
However When the Sherrif issued the final Deed
of Sale, it was erroneously stated that the sale was with
respect to “the parcel of land described in this title” and
not only over the rights and interests of Manuel Magali
in the same.

The CA affirmed the dismissal. It held that the
case involved not just reconveyance and damages, but
also determination of the rights and obligations of the
parties to a sale of real estate under PD 957; hence, the
case fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the HLURB.
Independent MeNorcantile Corporation filed a petition in
the Court to compel Manuel Magali to surrender the
owner’s duplicate of the TCT in order that the same may
be cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the
said corporation.

Issue: WON the lower court can dismiss the case on the Not be
ground of lack of jurisdiction even after a full blown trial
had ensued and ended (estoppels by laches).

Held: Estoppel by laches on matter of jurisdiction, such

as in the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, is the exception
rather than the rule. It that cited case, laches should be
clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction must have
been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption
that the party to assert it had abandoned or declined to
assert it.

In this case, from the very beginning, the present

respondent has been challenging the jurisdiction of the
trial court and asserting that the HLURB is the entity that
has proper jurisdiction over the case.

Modesta Calimlim and Lamberto Magali in his capacity

as administrator of the Estate of Domingo Magali vs.
Francisco Ram

Sometime in 1961, a judgment for a sum of

money was rendered in favor of Independent Mercantile
Corporation against a certain Miguel Magali by the
Municipal Court of Manila. After said judgment became
final, a writ of execution was issued. The Notice of Levy
on a parcel of land registered in the name of Domingo
Magali specified that the said levy was only against all
rights, title, action, interest and participation of the
defendant Manuel Magali. The Certificate of Sale