Posted by: Zennia Marie V. Deleonio on 03 August 2018
FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent entered into a contract to sell a house and lot Upon execution of the contract to sell, respondent made a down payment of P119,700.00, which was considered as monthly rentals. Despite the transfer of the title in the name of respondent and payment of monthly rentals, the latter refused to reconvey the property. Thus a case was filed against the respondent. A motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was filed by the respondent but it was denied.
Denying the material allegations of the complaint, the respondent again invoked the courts lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Further, there is a pending case between the same parties and involving the same townhouse before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board for unsound real estate business practices After trial, the court below dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Hence the appeal, CA held that the case involved not just reconveyance and damages, but also a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties to a sale of real estate under PD 957; hence, the case fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the HLURB.
ISSUE
Whether or not the lower court can dismiss the case after full blown trial on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
RULING:
Yes, a court's lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action. Moreover, jurisdiction is determined by the averments of the complaint, not by the defenses contained in the answer. Petitioner argues that the CA's affirmation of the trial courts dismissal of its case was erroneous, considering that a full-blown trial had already been conducted. In effect it contends that lack of jurisdiction could no longer be a ground for dismissal after trial had ensued and ended.
FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent entered into a contract to sell a house and lot Upon execution of the contract to sell, respondent made a down payment of P119,700.00, which was considered as monthly rentals. Despite the transfer of the title in the name of respondent and payment of monthly rentals, the latter refused to reconvey the property. Thus a case was filed against the respondent. A motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was filed by the respondent but it was denied.
Denying the material allegations of the complaint, the respondent again invoked the courts lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Further, there is a pending case between the same parties and involving the same townhouse before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board for unsound real estate business practices After trial, the court below dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Hence the appeal, CA held that the case involved not just reconveyance and damages, but also a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties to a sale of real estate under PD 957; hence, the case fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the HLURB.
ISSUE
Whether or not the lower court can dismiss the case after full blown trial on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
RULING:
Yes, a court's lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action. Moreover, jurisdiction is determined by the averments of the complaint, not by the defenses contained in the answer. Petitioner argues that the CA's affirmation of the trial courts dismissal of its case was erroneous, considering that a full-blown trial had already been conducted. In effect it contends that lack of jurisdiction could no longer be a ground for dismissal after trial had ensued and ended.
The above argument is anchored on estoppel by laches which was enunciated in the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy to thwart dismissals on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In which this doctrine was espoused, held that a party may be barred from questioning a court's jurisdiction after being invoked to secure affirmative relief against its opponent. In fine, laches prevents the issue of lack of jurisdiction from being raised for the first time on appeal by a litigant whose purpose is to annul everything done in a trial in which it has actively participated.
