LAMSIS vs.

DONG-E
GR No. 173021 – October 20, 2010
Del Castillo

SUBJECT:

FACTS:
 This case involves a conflict of ownership and possession over an untitled parcel of
land.
 Petitioners are the actual occupants of the subject land and respondent is claiming
ownership thereof and is seeking to recover its possession from petitioners.
 According to respondent, her family’s ownership and occupation of the land can be
traced as far back as 1922 to her late grandfather, Ap-ap. Upon Ap-ap’s death, the
property was inherited by his children, who obtained a survey plan and declared the
property for tax purposes in the name of “Teirs of Ap-ap.”
 The heirs of Ap-ap then executed a deed of quitclaim in favor of respondent’s father.
 That the heirs of Gilbert Semon tolerated the acts of their first cousins, petitioner’s
in-laws, to stay on a Lot No. 1 together with their respective families.
 When Gilbert Semon died, his children extrajudicially partitioned the property
among themselves and allotted Lot No. 1 in favor of Margarita.
 When the petitioner began expanding their occupation on the subject property and
selling portions thereof, Margarita filed a complaint for recovery of ownership,
possession, reconveyance, and damages.

RTC: preponderates in favor of respondents long-time possession of and claim of

ownership over the subject property. The survey plan, tax declarations, and the
documentary evidence of the transfer of the land from the heirs of ap-ap to respondent
father were given credence.
CA: Ruled that the respondent was able to discharge her burden in proving her title and
interest to the subject property.

ISSUE:
(1) WON appellate court disregarded material facts and circumstances in affirming the
trial courts decision
(2) WON petitioner have acquired the subject property by prescription
(3) WON the ancestral land claim pending before the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) should take precedence over the reivindicatory action.
(4) WON the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the case in light of the effectivity of
RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 at the time that the
complaint was instituted.

HELD:
(1) Asda

(2) Asda

(3) No.

(4) Yes.
As a general rule, an objection over subject-matter may be raised any time of the
proceedings. This is because jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or vested by the
agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is vested by law, which prevailed at the time of the
filing of the complaint.
However, an exception to this rule has been carved by jurisprudence. In Tajim v.
Sibonghanoy, the court ruled that the existence of laches will prevent a party from raising
the courts lack of jurisdiction. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence,
could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within
a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned or declined it.

In the case at bar, the application of the Tijam doctrine is called for because of the presence
of laches cannot be ignored.

At the time the complaint was file in 1998, the IPRA was already in effect but the
petitioners never raised the same as a ground for dismissal; instead they filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the value of the property did not meet the jurisdictional value
for the RTC. They obviously neglected to take the IPRA into consideration.

It is only before the SC, 8 years after the filing of the complaint, after the trial court had
already conducted a full-blown trial and rendered a decision on the merits, after the
appellate court had made a thorough review of the records, and after petitioner have twice
encountered adverse decision from the trial and the appellate courts that petitioner now
want to expunge all the efforts that have gone into the litigation and resolution of their case
and start of over again.