DUERO VS.

CA court over the action at any stage of the proceedings and even on
G. R. No. 131282. 4 January, 2002 appeal.

FACTS: On June 16, 1995, petitioner Duero filed with the RTC an
action for Recovery of Possession and Ownership of a parcel of
land with an assessed value of P5,240 against respondent Eradel.
When Eradel failed to file his answer within the prescribed period,
the RTC declared him in default and rendered a judgment adverse
to him.
Eradel filed a motion for new trial with the RTC which the latter
denied. Later, Eradel filed a petition for relief from judgment which
the RTC also denied. In his motion for reconsideration of the order
denying his petition for relief from judgment, Eradel raised for the
first time the issue of the RTCs lack of jurisdiction over the action.
He contended that since the assessed value of the real property
involved was P5,240, the action was within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MTC. The RTC denied Eradels motion for
reconsideration.
Even if Eradel actively participated in the proceeding in the RTC,
the doctrine of estoppel cannot yet apply to him because the
question of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time and at
any stage of the action.
The ruling in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy cannot apply in the present
case because the facts in the two cases are substantially different.
In the Tijam case, the petitioner raised the issue of lack of
jurisdiction of the trial course only after the CA had rendered a
judgment against him. In the present case, Eradel raised the issue
of lack of jurisdiction even when the action was still with the RTC.

On March 12, 1997, Eradel filed with the CA a petition for

certiorari. The CA granted Eradels petition and set aside the
judgment of the RTC.

In a petition for certiorari dated September 17, 1997 filed with the
SC, Duero argued that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion
when it set aside the judgment of the RTC and allowed Eradel to
raise the issue of its lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: WON the CA gravely abused its discretion when it held that
Eradel was not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC
after filing several motions before it.

RULING: A courts lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived or cured

by a partys act, omission, silence, acquiescence or even by his
express consent. Further, a party may assail the jurisdiction of the