G.R. No.

L-21450             April 15, 1968

SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.
MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY alias GAVINO SIBONGHANOY and LUCIA BAGUIO, defendants,
MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC. (CEBU BRANCH) bonding company and defendant-appellant.

DIZON, J.:

DOCTRINE

A party may be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the court for reasons of public policy as when he initially
invokes the jurisdiction of the court and then later on repudiate that same jurisdiction (estoppel by laches).

FACTS

Spouses Serafin and Felicitas commenced a civil case against spouses Sibonghanoy to recover from them a sum of P1, 908.00 with
legal interest. A writ of attachment was issued by the court against the defendants’ properties but the same was soon dissolved. After
trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and after the same had become final and executor, the court issued a writ of
execution against the defendants. The writ being unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of the writ of execution against
the Surety’s bond. Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued without summary
hearing. This was denied by the RTC. The Surety appealed in the CA, which was denied. This time, the surety just asked for an
extension in order for them to file the motion for reconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion for reconsideration, it filed a
motion to dismiss saying that by virtue of R.A. 296 which is the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1948, section 88 of which placed
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil action where the value of the subject matter does not exceed
P2,000.00. The Court of First Instance therefore has no jurisdiction over the case. The question of jurisdiction was filed by the Surety
only 15 years from the time the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance.

ISSUE: WON THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED DUE TO THE LACK OF JURISDICTION

RULING

The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of
it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, Surety is now barred
by laches from invoking this plea at this late hour for the purpose of annuling everything done heretofore in the case
with its active participation.

The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the
question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by
reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive
jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in
the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final
adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke
up to raise the question of jurisdiction.
After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the
jurisdiction or power of the court. it is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a
particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.