G.R. No. 102833; February 9, 1996
LOLITA AMIGO and ESTELITA VDA. DE SALINAS, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE AUGUSTO V. BREVA, as Judge, RTC of Davao, Branch X, THE SHERIFF OF THE RTC represented by Alfonso M. Zamora, Deputy Sheriff of Branch X, and JESUS WEE ENG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Lolita Amigo and Estelita Vda. de Salinas were lessees of a parcel of land in Davao City. The land was later sold to Juan Bosquit and respondent Jesus Wee Eng. In 1966, Bosquit and Wee exchanged a portion of this lot with the City Government of Davao, resulting in the subdivision of the property and the issuance of new titles. Wee eventually became the sole owner. In 1977, Wee filed a complaint for recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 10363) against the petitioners in the Court of First Instance (CFI), alleging they occupied portions of his titled lot, Lot 502-C-9-B. A commissioner’s survey confirmed that about two-thirds of the petitioners’ houses stood on Wee’s property.
The trial court ruled in favor of Wee, ordering the petitioners to vacate the encroached portions, pay monthly compensation, and demolish the parts of their houses constituting a nuisance on a public street. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their appeal was dismissed for failure to file an appeal brief. Their subsequent petition for relief was also denied for being filed out of time. The trial court then issued writs of execution and demolition. Petitioners filed a petition to annul these writs with the Court of Appeals, arguing the CFI lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and over their persons, claiming they were not properly served with summons.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Regional Trial Court (formerly CFI) validly acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons of the petitioners in Civil Case No. 10363.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Court held that the action for recovery of possession filed by Wee clearly involved title to or possession of real property. Under the applicable laws, the CFI (the predecessor of the RTC) had exclusive original jurisdiction over such actions. Therefore, the trial court correctly exercised jurisdiction.
On jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners, the Court ruled that they voluntarily submitted to the court’s authority. The records showed that petitioners, through counsel, filed an answer to the amended complaint and actively participated in the trial by presenting evidence and cross-examining witnesses. They never raised the issue of improper service of summons in a motion to dismiss or in their answer. Jurisdiction over the person can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by voluntary appearance. By their active participation without seasonably objecting to the court’s jurisdiction over their persons, petitioners are deemed to have waived any defect in the service of process. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person must be raised at the earliest opportunity; it cannot be raised for the first time after an adverse judgment has been rendered.