G.R. No. 116883, September 22, 1998.
BISHOP NICOLAS M. MONDEJAR, petitioner, vs. HON. ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, and DR. OSCAR BROCE, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Dr. Oscar Broce’s real properties were sold at a public auction sale conducted by the NLRC sheriff on December 7, 1989, to satisfy a labor judgment against him. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Carlos City, Inc. (RCBSCCI) was the highest bidder, and a Certificate of Sale was issued. After the one-year redemption period expired without redemption, a Final Deed of Sale was executed in favor of RCBSCCI on December 21, 1990. On February 27, 1991, RCBSCCI, through petitioner Bishop Nicolas M. Mondejar, filed a “Petition For The Surrender Of Certificates Of Title” (Cadastral Case No. RTC-280) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City to compel the surrender of the titles for cancellation and issuance of new ones in its name. Private respondent initially did not oppose the petition or subsequent motions. The RTC granted the petition and issued orders directing the surrender of titles, cancellation, and issuance of new titles, and later granted a writ of possession. After these proceedings, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 9, 1993, contending that the case was an incident of the execution of the NLRC labor decision and thus the NLRC had exclusive jurisdiction. The RTC, in an Order dated February 1, 1994, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and declared its prior orders null and void. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for surrender of certificates of title on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, despite private respondent’s active participation in the proceedings and failure to raise the jurisdictional issue in a timely manner.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullified the assailed RTC orders, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that while the petition for surrender of titles was indeed an incident of the execution proceedings originating from the NLRC, private respondent was barred by estoppel by laches from questioning the RTC’s jurisdiction. Private respondent voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings, filing motions, and appealing orders without raising the jurisdictional issue until a very late stage. The Court emphasized that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief and later repudiate that same jurisdiction. The respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the proceedings based on a belated jurisdictional challenge. The proper remedy for the petitioner was certiorari under Rule 65, as the order of dismissal frustrated the completion of the execution of the final labor decision.