Posted by: Zennia Marie V. Deleonio on 3 August 2018
FACTS:
Mila G. Pangilinan was charged and convicted with the crime of Estafa before the RTC, a crime cognizable by MTC. He filed a petition for new trial in the CA which was denied. a crime cognizable by MTC. She brought the case to CA for new trial but the same was denied. She alleged that the Decision of the trial court is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the crime charged. Relying in the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibanghanoy, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the appellant is barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction, estoppels having already set in. In the aforementioned case, the Court ruled: 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is barred for raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter because estoppel already set in.
RULING:
No. The Office of the Solicitor General's reliance on the said ruling is misplaced. The doctrine laid down in the Tijam case is an exception to and not the general rule. Estoppel attached to the party assailing the jurisdiction of the court, as it was the same party who sought recourse in the said forum. In the case at bar, appellant cannot in anyway be said to have invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, we apply the general rule that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be conferred or waived by the parties. Even on appeal and even if the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case: The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same "must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel. Estoppel in questioning the jurisdiction of the court is only brought to bear when not to do so will subvert the ends of justice.
FACTS:
Mila G. Pangilinan was charged and convicted with the crime of Estafa before the RTC, a crime cognizable by MTC. He filed a petition for new trial in the CA which was denied. a crime cognizable by MTC. She brought the case to CA for new trial but the same was denied. She alleged that the Decision of the trial court is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the crime charged. Relying in the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibanghanoy, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the appellant is barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction, estoppels having already set in. In the aforementioned case, the Court ruled: 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is barred for raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter because estoppel already set in.
RULING:
No. The Office of the Solicitor General's reliance on the said ruling is misplaced. The doctrine laid down in the Tijam case is an exception to and not the general rule. Estoppel attached to the party assailing the jurisdiction of the court, as it was the same party who sought recourse in the said forum. In the case at bar, appellant cannot in anyway be said to have invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, we apply the general rule that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be conferred or waived by the parties. Even on appeal and even if the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case: The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same "must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel. Estoppel in questioning the jurisdiction of the court is only brought to bear when not to do so will subvert the ends of justice.
