G.R. No. 189626.
August 20, 2018
GREGORIO AMOGUIS TITO AMOGUIS, PETITIONERS,
VS.
CONCEPCION BALLADO AND MARY GRACE BALLADO LEDESMA, AND ST.
JOSEPH REALTY, LTD. RESPONDENTS.
Facts:
1969, spouses Ballado entered into two contracts to sell with owner and developer
St. Joseph Realty, Ltd. to buy on installment parcels of land, designated as Lot Nos.
1 and 2. The Ballado Spouses amortized until 1979 when Pinili, St. Joseph Realty’s
collector, refused to receive their payments because of a small house they had
erected therein in violation of the rules of the subdivision. Francisco informed St.
Joseph Realty that the small house had already been taken down, but Pinili still did
not come to collect.
February 1987, the Ballado Spouses discovered that St. Joseph Realty rescinded
their contracts. St. Joseph Realty sold Lot Nos. 1 and 2 to Epifanio Amoguis, father
of Amoguis Brothers. After making payments, the Amoguis Brothers then occupied
the lots. Francisco Ballado confronted the Amoguis Brothers when he saw that the
barbed fences, which he had installed around the lots, were taken down. Epifanio
told him that he bought the lots from St. Joseph Realty.
December 1987, The Ballado Spouses filed a Complaint for damages, injunction with
writ of preliminary injunction, mandatory injunction, cancellation and annulment of
titles. St. Joseph Realty filed its Answer. It was its affirmative defense that the RTC
had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that jurisdiction was properly vested in the
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.
The RTC Ballado Spouses, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE:
Whether the Regional Trial Court's lack of jurisdiction was lost by waiver or
estoppel?
RULING:
The principe in Tijam vs. Sibanghonoy applies to a party claiming lack of subject
matter jurisdiction when:
1. there was a statutory right in favor of the claimant;
2. the statutory right was not invoked;
3. an unreasonable length of time lapsed before the claimant raised the issue of
jurisdiction;
4. the claimant actively participated in the case and sought affirmative relief
from the court without jurisdiction;
5. the claimant knew or had constructive knowledge of which forum possesses
subject matter jurisdiction; and
6. irreparable damage will be caused to the other party who relied on the forum
and the claimant’s implicit waiver.
The principle in Tijam vs. Sibanghonoy applies in this case.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint is conferred by law. It cannot be
lost through waiver or estoppel. It can be raised at any time in the proceedings,
whether during trial or on appeal. The edict in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is not an
exception to the rule on jurisdiction. A court that does not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter of a case will not acquire jurisdiction because of estoppel. Rather,
the edict in Tijam must be appreciated as a waiver of a party's right to raise
jurisdiction based on the doctrine of equity. It is only when the circumstances in
Tijam are present that a waiver or an estoppel in questioning jurisdiction is
appreciated.
The unique circumstances in Tijam are present in this case. Indeed, as the
petitioners in this case belatedly argue, the Regional Trial Court did not have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint. However, under the doctrine
in Tijam, petitioners cannot now raise lack of jurisdiction as they have waived their
right to do so. Estoppel by laches has set in. Petitioners did not question the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court during trial and on appeal. It is only before
this Court, 22 long years after the Complaint was filed, that petitioners raised
the Regional Trial Court's lack of jurisdiction.
