CIVIL PROCEDURE – JUSTICE DE LEON

UNDERGROUND CASE DIGESTS

Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor
FACTS
• The Balanes, the private respondents in this case, filed a complaint for the
recovery of ownership and possession as well as removal of construction
and damages (moral & exemplary) against Bertuldo Hinog.
• It was alleged that the Balanes are the owners of a parcel of land in Bohol,
which they have rented to Bertuldo for 10 years with an annual rental of
100php. Bertuldo, thereafter, constructed a house of light materials in the
said lot.
• However, after the expiry of the 10 years, Bertuldo refused to surrender the
lot and even claimed ownership over the same by virtue of a deed of
absolute sale executed by one Tomas Pahac, with the alleged conformity of
the Balanes.
• Trial on the merits ensued but Bertuldo died without completing his
evidence.
• Consequently, Bertuldo III designated Atty. Petalcorin to be his new
counsel. The latter filed a motion to expunge the complaint and nullify all
proceedings on the ground that the amount of damages claimed is not
stated so the proper docket fee was not paid by the Balanes hence the
court did not acquire jurisdiction. Under the Manchester Ruling, Non-
payment of the correct docket fee is jurisdictional.
• The trial court granted the motion but later on reinstated the case after the
payment of the correct docket fee.
• Instead of filing for an MR, a supplemental pleading was filed by Atty.
Petalcorin appending therein the Deed of Sale of the lot in question. The
trial court denied the supplemental pleading on the ground that the Deed is
a new matter, never mentioned in the original answer prepared by
Bertuldo’s original counsel.
• Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition
ISSUE: WON the petitioners may challenge the court’s jurisdiction?
HELD: NO!
After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial court by seeking affirmative relief in
their motion to serve supplemental pleading upon private respondents, petitioners
are effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction. If a
party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the court's
jurisdiction in the same case. To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the
fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court.
After Bertuldo vigorously participated in all stages of the case before the
trial court and even invoked the trial court's authority in order to ask for
affirmative relief, petitioners, considering that they merely stepped into
the shoes of their predecessor, are effectively barred by estoppel from
challenging the trial court's jurisdiction. Although the issue of jurisdiction
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings as the same is conferred by
law, it is nonetheless settled that a party may be barred from raising it on
ground of laches or estoppel.
Additional:
Issue: WON the non-payment of the proper docket fee at the time of the filing of the
complaint automatically causes the dismissal of the action? NO
Ratio: The Court has held that the Manchester rule has been modified in Sun
Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) vs. Asuncion, which defined the following guidelines
involving the payment of docket fees:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a
trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the
action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied
by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the
fees within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
XXX
Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional
requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not
automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid
within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when
the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules
prescribing such payment.[46] Thus, when insufficient filing fees were
initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the
government, the Manchester rule does not apply.
Digest by Cates

It is worth noting that when Bertuldo filed his Answer on July 2, 1991, he did not
raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction for non-payment of correct docket fees. Instead,
he based his defense on a claim of ownership and participated in the proceedings
before the trial court. It was only in September 22, 1998 or more than seven years
after filing the answer, and under the auspices of a new counsel, that the issue of
jurisdiction was raised for the first time in the motion to expunge by Bertuldo's heirs.

Page 1 of 1 | ALBERTO ANBOCHI ATILLO AVILA CHUA GUERRERO DELA ROSA MIRANDA REVOTE REYES SALVADOR SUAREZ SULIT TAYAG