TOPIC Jurisdiction over Parties  

CASE NO. G.R. No. 173946 

CASE NAME Boston Equity Resources v. CA 
MEMBER Raymond Conchu 

DOCTRINE
1. The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by
laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter.

2. There was no valid summons (hence no jurisdiction over the parties) upon him because he was
already dead before the complaint against him and his wife was filed before the court. The proper
remedy in this case was that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint against all the
defendants and claim should be filed against the estate of the deceased defendant.

3. Defense of lack of jurisdiction of the parties is a personal defense

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Boston Equity filed a case against Spouses Toledo, however the husband Mendoza Toledo passed away
before receiving the summons.Toledo filed to dismiss the case because they did not acquire jurisdiction of
Mendoza and estoppel since they only brought up the issue on jurisdiction 6 years after. Boston filed to
substitute to and impede heirs instead of dismissing the case. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. CA
granted appeal and said they should impede the heirs instead of outright dismiss the case.

SC Held: The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by
laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter. However in this case Toledo questioned in her motion to
dismiss before the trial court was jurisdiction over the person of defendant Manuel (Person who died),
thus the principle of estoppel by laches finds no application in this case.

Jurisdiction was never acquired by the trial court. Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified
and the action brought against him. There was no valid summons upon him because he was already dead
before the complaint against him and his wife was filed before the court. The proper remedy in this case
was that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint against all the defendants and claim should be
filed against the estate of the deceased defendant. Defense of lack of jurisdiction of the parties is a
personal defense and can not be invoked by other parties to gain the benefit of dismissal.

FACTS

● Boston Equity filed a complaint for a sum of money with a prayer of a writ of preliminary
attachment against Spouses Toledo
● Spouses Toledo filed an answer but she then filed a Motion for Leave to Admit in which she
alleged among others that her husband (Mendoza) is already dead.
● Toledo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the fact that the court did not have
jurisdiction over Mendoza Toledo (husband who is dead) and that the trial court erred in ordering
the substitution of the deceased Manuel by his heirs.

1
 ● Toledo’s motion for reconsideration of the order of denial was denied on the ground that
defendants attack on the jurisdiction of this court is now barred by estoppel by lanches since
respondent failed to raise the issue despite several chances to do so.
● Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion in
denying her motion to dismiss despite discovery, during the trial.
● CA granted the appeal and said they should impede the heirs instead of outright dismiss the case.

ISSUE/S and HELD (Only relevant topic part of our lesson)

1. W/N Respondent is estopped from questions the jurisdiction of the trial court? ​NO
2. W/N Jurisdiction over Manuel is acquired through a valid service of summons? ​NO

RATIO
1. W/N Respondent is estopped from questions the jurisdiction of the trial court?

Petitioners Arguments:
Respondent’s motion to dismiss questioning jurisdiction was filed more than 6 years after her amended
answer was filed. Respondent had several opportunities at various stages of the proceeding to assail the
jurisdiction but never did.

Respondent’s failure to raise the question of jurisdiction at an earlier stage bars her from later questioning
it. Since she actively participated in the proceedings conducted by the trial court.

SC Held:
The​ aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is
jurisdiction over the subject matter. ​Where a case for collection of sum of money in the amount of 1.9k
was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC

In these cases the SC barred the attack on the jurisdiction of the respective courts concerned over the
subject matter of the case based on estoppel by laches, declaring that parties can not be allowed to
belatedly adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of a court to which they submitted
their cause voluntarily.

However in this case Toledo questioned in her motion to dismiss before the trial court was jurisdiction
over the person of defendant Manuel (Person who died), thus the principle of estoppel by laches finds no
application in this case.

Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one of those defenses
which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such defense must be invoked when an answer
or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver of the defense .

2. W/N Jurisdiction over Manuel is acquired through a valid service of summons?

Jurisdiction was never acquired by the trial court. Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified
and the action brought against him. There was no valid summons upon him because he was already dead
before the complaint against him and his wife was filed before the court. The proper remedy in this case
was that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint against all the defendants and claim should be
filed against the estate of the deceased defendant.

2
In another case it was said that. The court’s failure to acquire jurisdiction over one’s person is a defense
which is personal to the person claiming it. Neither can petitioner invoke such ground on behalf of
another to reap the benefit of having the case dismissed against all defendants.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 28 February 2006 and the Resolution
dated 1 August 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88586 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court dated 8 November 2004 and 22 December 2004,
respectively, in Civil Case No. 97-86672, are REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 24,
Manila is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with the trial of Civil Case No. 97-86672 against respondent
Lolita G. Toledo only, in accordance with the above pronouncements of the Court, and to decide the case
with dispatch.