G.R. No. 186366, July 03, 2013
By: Zennia Marie V. Deleonio on 03 August 2018
FACTS:
A complaint for Recovery of Possession filed by the petitioners against Reynaldo De Belen, herein respondent, before the RTC, registered in the name of the late Jose, married to Lucila Tinio and Apolonia Fernando, wife of Felipe Galvez. It was alleged that petitioners are the children of the late Jose and they are in the process of partitioning their inheritance. However, they could not properly accomplish the partition due to the presence of the respondent who intruded into a portion of their property and conducted quarrying operations in its immediate vicinity for so many years, without their knowledge and permission.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. RTC decided which is favorable to the petitioners. Thus, this appeal raising the issues on jurisdiction for failure of the petitioners to state the assessed value of the subject property, absence of evidence proving the lawful ownership of the petitioners and the grant of affirmative reliefs which were not alleged or prayed for.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC acquire jurisdiction.
RULING:
Yes. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings. Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted grounds where the court may dismiss a claim or a case at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that any of those grounds exists, even if they were not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss.[16] So that, whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment. Such is understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside. A reading of both the complaint and the amended complaint shows that petitioners failed to state the assessed value of the disputed lot.
After the entire proceedings fully participated in by the respondent, he cannot be allowed to question the result as having been rendered without jurisdiction. This is the teaching in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, et al. As reiterated in Soliven v. Fastforms Philippines, Inc., where the Court ruled:
"While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, "this rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened." In the instant case, respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has been rendered." . Similarly, as this Court held in Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred the respondent by estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction. The Court has consistently upheld the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a litigant who participated in the court proceedings by filing pleadings and presenting his evidence cannot later on question the trial court's jurisdiction when judgement unfavorable to him is rendered.
