Scribd
Upload
161 views1 page

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance had proper jurisdiction over a case filed in 1948 to recover a debt, even though jurisdiction should have been with the Municipal Trial Court under a new law. The surety company involved did not raise the objection to jurisdiction until 1963, 15 years after becoming quasi-party to the case, and was therefore estopped by laches from objecting.

Uploaded by

Francise Mae Montilla Mordeno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
161 views1 page

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance had proper jurisdiction over a case filed in 1948 to recover a debt, even though jurisdiction should have been with the Municipal Trial Court under a new law. The surety company involved did not raise the objection to jurisdiction until 1963, 15 years after becoming quasi-party to the case, and was therefore estopped by laches from objecting.

Uploaded by

Francise Mae Montilla Mordeno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

9. Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No.

L-21450, April 15,


1968

FACTS: On July 1948, 1 month after RA 296 took effect,


Spouses Tijam filed a case against Sibonghanoy to recover
a sum of P1908.

CFI ruled against them, issued a writ of execution ordering


them to pay. Spouses failed to do so.

They moved for issuance for writ of execution against the


surety bond, Manila Surety. The surety company moved to
deny, but it was denied by CFI.

CA affirmed. On January 8, 1963, Manila Surety moved to


dismiss the case because Spouses Tijam wrongly filed the
case before the CFI on 1948.

A month before the filing of the action, RA 296 took effect


which conferred jurisdiction to MTC.

ISSUE: Whether CFI was conferred jurisdiction over the


subject matter.

RULING: Yes.

On the principle of Estoppel by laches, Objection may be


raised at any stage in the proceeding.

Action was commenced in 1948.

It was 15 yeas before they filed a motion to dismiss.

From the time the surety company became a quasi-party in


1948, it could have raised an objection. But the surety
company objected belatedly.

You might also like