Gonzaga vs CA (Remedial Law)

SPS. RENE GONZAGA and LERIO GONZAGA 

vs.

CA, HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, and LUCKY HOMES, INC.

G.R. No. 144025; December 27, 2002; CORONA, J.:

FACTS:

Sometime in 1970, Sps. Gonzaga purchased a parcel of land from private respondent Lucky Homes, Inc., situated in Iloilo and containing an area of 240 square meters. Said lot was specifically denominated as Lot No. 19 under a TCT and was mortgaged to the Social Security System (SSS) as security for their housing loan.

Petitioners then started the construction of their house, not on Lot No. 19 but on Lot No. 18, as Lucky Homes Inc mistakenly identified Lot No. 18 as Lot No. 19. Upon realizing its error, private respondent informed petitioners of such mistake but the latter offered to buy Lot No. 18 in order to widen their premises. Thus, petitioners continued with the construction of their house.

However, petitioners defaulted in the payment of their housing loan from SSS. Consequently, Lot No. 19 was foreclosed by SSS and petitioners’ certificate of title was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of SSS.

Sps. Gonzaga then offered to swap Lot Nos. 18 and 19 and demanded from Lucky Homes that their contract of sale be reformed and another deed of sale be executed with respect to Lot No. 18, considering that their house was built therein. However, private respondent refused. This prompted petitioners to file, on June 13, 1996, an action for reformation of contract and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 36.

The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It held that when Lot No. 19 was foreclosed and sold at public auction, the reformation, or the swapping of Lot 18 and Lot 19, was no longer feasible considering that Sps. Gonzaga were no longer the owners of Lot 19. Thus, Lucky Homes would be losing Lot 18 without any substitute therefore. Furthermore, the RTC ruled:

"The logic and common sense of the situation lean heavily in favor of the defendant. It is evident that what plaintiff had bought from the defendant is Lot 19 covered by TCT No. 28254 which parcel of land has been properly indicated in the instruments and not Lot 18 as claimed by the plaintiff. The contracts being clear and unmistakable, they reflect the true intention of the parties, besides the plaintiff failed to assail the contracts on mutual mistake, hence the same need no longer be reformed.”

A writ of execution was issued. The petitioners filed a motion to recall said writ on the ground that the RTC lack jurisdiction as pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree), it was vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Consequently, Sps. Gonzaga filed a new complaint with the HLURB, and also a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The CA dismissed the petition, relying on the doctrine of estoppel laid down in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.

ISSUE:

            WON the Sps Gonzaga are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC to try the case

HELD:

Yes. The SC held that the doctrine in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, as reiterated in numerous cases, is still controlling. In explaining the concept of jurisdiction by estoppel, the Court quoted its decision in said case, to wit:

"It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate, or question that same jurisdiction x x x x [T]he question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice can not be tolerated–– obviously for reasons of public policy."

Furthermore, the Court said that it was petitioners themselves who invoked the jurisdiction of the court a quo by instituting an action for reformation of contract against private respondents. It must be noted that in the proceedings before the trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted their cause from start to finish. Not even once did petitioners ever raise the issue of the court’s jurisdiction during the entire proceedings which lasted for two years. It was only after the trial court rendered its decision and issued a writ of execution against them in 1998 did petitioners first raise the issue of jurisdiction ─ and it was only because said decision was unfavorable to them. Petitioners thus effectively waived their right to question the court’s jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

Petition for review is denied.

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.