Duero vs CA (Remedial Law)

GABRIEL L. DUERO 

vs.

CA, and BERNARDO A. ERADEL

G.R. No. 131282; January 4, 2002; QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:

Sometime in 1988, according to petitioner, private Eradel entered and occupied petitioner's land covered by Tax Declaration No. A-16-13-302, located in Baras, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur. As shown in the tax declaration, the land had an assessed value of P5,240. Petitioner informed respondent that the land was his, and requested the latter to vacate the land. However, despite repeated demands, private respondent remained steadfast in his refusal to leave the land.

On June 16, 1995, petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages and Attorney's Fees against private respondent and two others, namely, Apolinario and Inocencio Ruena.

Petitioner and the Ruenas executed a compromise agreement, which became the trial court's basis for a partial judgment rendered on January 12, 1996. In this agreement, the Ruenas recognized and bound themselves to respect the ownership and possession of Duero. Herein private respondent Eradel was not a party to the agreement, and he was declared in default for failure to file his answer to the complaint.

Petitioner presented his evidence ex parte on February 13, 1996. On May 8, 1996, judgment was rendered in his favor, and private respondent was ordered to peacefully vacate and turn over the lot.

On June 10, 1996, private respondent filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that he has been occupying the land as a tenant of Artemio Laurente, Sr., since 1958. He explained that he turned over the complaint and summons to Laurente in the honest belief that as landlord, the latter had a better right to the land and was responsible to defend any adverse claim on it. However, the trial court denied the motion for new trial.

Private respondent then filed before the RTC a Petition for Relief from Judgment, reiterating the same allegation in his Motion for New Trial. The RTC again denied the Petition.

Private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration in which he alleged that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since the value of the land is only P5,240, which is within the jurisdiction of the MTC. However, the RTC denied the MR.

Private respondent filed with the Court of Appeals, a petition for certiorari which the latter granted.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the case

2) WON the private respondent Eradel is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of RTC after he has successfully sought affirmative relief therefrom

HELD:

1) None. The case falls under the jurisdiction of the MTC based on Republic Act 7691 amending BP 129.

2) No. For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice.

Private respondent, an unschooled farmer, in the mistaken belief that since he was merely a tenant of the late Artemio Laurente Sr., his landlord, gave the summons to a Hipolito Laurente, one of the surviving heirs of Artemio Sr., who did not do anything about the summons. For failure to answer the complaint, private respondent was declared in default.

He then filed a Motion for New Trial in the same court, but such was denied. He filed before the RTC a Motion for Relief from Judgment. Again, the same court denied his motion, hence he moved for reconsideration of the denial. In his Motion for Reconsideration, he raised for the first time the RTC's lack of jurisdiction. This motion was again denied. 

Note that private respondent raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, not when the case was already on appeal, but when the case, was still before the RTC that ruled him in default, denied his motion for new trial as well as for relief from judgment, and denied likewise his two motions for reconsideration

The fundamental rule is that, the lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the parties, or even cured by their silence, acquiescence or even by their 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. The appellate court did not err in saying that the RTC should have declared itself barren of jurisdiction over the action

Citing Javier v CA, the Court reiterated: Under the rules, it is the duty of the court to dismiss an action 'whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.' (Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court)

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

Thus, the ruling of the CA is affirmed. The decision of the RTC and its Order that private respondent turn over the disputed land to petitioner, and the Writ of Execution it issued, are annulled and set aside.