Sps. Rene and Lerio Gonzaga vs Court of Appeals et. al.

442 Phil. 735 Dec. 27, 2002

Corona, J.,

Doctrine:

 While an order rendered without jurisdiction is void and may be assailed at any stage,
active participation in the proceedings in the court which rendered the order or
decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction.

Facts:

Spouses Gonzaga purchased a land from Lucky Homes. The said lot was specifically
denominated as Lot 19 under its TCT and was mortgaged to SSS as a security for their housing
loan. However, the spouses mistakenly constructed their house on Lot 18. Lucky Homes
informed the spouses but the latter offered to buy the said lot instead to widen their
premises. The spouses continued with the construction of their house but they defaulted in
the payment of their housing loan from SSS. Lot 19 was foreclosed and the spouses TCT were
cancelled. Petitioners offered to swap Lot 19 with Lot 18 but Lucky Homes refused. The
spouses filed an action for reformation of contract which the RTC dismissed. A writ of
execution was issued by the Trial Court but this was challenged by the spouses through an
urgent motion to recall writ of execution and filed a petition for annulment of judgment in
the CA, contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case as it was vested in the
HLURB. The spouses filed a new complaint with the HLURB against Lucky Homes. The CA
dismissed the petition on the ground of estoppel.

Issue:

 Whether or not the Spouses are estopped from challenging the decision of the RTC.

Held:

 Yes, they are estopped from challenging the decision of the RTC.

While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and maybe
assailed at any stage, active participationin the court which rendered the decision will
bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction (Tijam vs Sibonghanoy).

“A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for
different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record,
and of estoppel by laches.”

In this case, it was the petitioners (the spouses) themselves who invoked the
jurisdiction of the RTCC by instituting an action for reformation of contract against
Lucky Homes. Petitioners vigorously asserted their cause from start to finish, it was
only after the trial court rendered its decision and issued a writ of execution against
them did the petitioners first raise the issue of jurisdiction and it was only because the
said decision was unfavorable to them.

Petitioners should bear the consequence of their act.