G.R. No. L-65072. January 31, 1984.
APOLINAR R. ROYALES and PRESENTACION GREGORIO, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, JOSE PLANAS, HON. J. CESAR SANGCO, etc., et al., respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Jose Planas filed an ejectment suit against petitioners Apolinar R. Royales and Presentacion Gregorio, his lessees, before the City Court of Manila. The petitioners filed an answer, participated in the trial, and cross-examined Planas. After petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, the case was submitted for decision. The City Court ruled in favor of Planas, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises. The decision became final and executory, and a writ of execution was issued.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to annul the City Court’s judgment. They argued that the City Court never acquired jurisdiction because Planas failed to refer the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation as required by Presidential Decree No. 1508 (the Katarungang Pambarangay Law) before filing the ejectment case. The RTC nullified the City Court’s decision, holding that the lack of prior barangay conciliation rendered the filing premature and the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the City Court acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment case despite the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the barangay conciliation requirement under P.D. 1508.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the City Court validly acquired jurisdiction. While Section 6 of P.D. 1508 mandates barangay conciliation as a precondition for filing actions covered by the law, non-compliance ordinarily affects the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action or renders the complaint premature. However, such non-compliance does not automatically deprive a court of competent jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. The critical factor is the defendant’s timely objection to the exercise of that jurisdiction due to the missing precondition.
In this case, petitioners did not raise the absence of barangay conciliation in their answer or at any stage during the trial in the City Court. Instead, they voluntarily invoked the court’s jurisdiction by filing an answer, seeking affirmative relief, and actively participating in the proceedings, including cross-examination. By doing so, they are estopped from subsequently challenging the court’s jurisdiction after receiving an adverse judgment. The Court, citing Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, emphasized that public policy forbids a party from affirming a court’s jurisdiction to seek relief and then repudiating that same jurisdiction to avoid an unfavorable outcome. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, which had affirmed the City Court’s judgment, was upheld.