G.R. No. 123215 February 2, 1999.
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARSENIO J. MAGPALE, and JOSE MA. P. JACINTO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Jose Ma. P. Jacinto filed a complaint against petitioner National Steel Corporation (NSC) and Manila Golf and Country Club, Inc. (MGCCI) for the recovery of personal property. Jacinto alleged he was the former owner of 100 shares of MGCCI covered by Stock Certificate No. 1361. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1986 after being abroad, he discovered his stock certificate had been cancelled and a replacement certificate had been issued in the name of NSC. He claimed the cancellation and transfer were void due to lack of meeting of minds, contract, or consideration. The complaint prayed for: (1) an order directing NSC to execute a deed of assignment re-transferring the shares to him and for MGCCI to cancel NSC’s certificate and issue a new one in his name; and (2) moral damages of P1 Million and attorney’s fees of P100,000. NSC initially moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription, which was denied. After filing an answer and participating in proceedings, NSC filed a new motion to dismiss in 1993 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to alleged non-payment of the correct docket fees. NSC argued the action was for recovery of property and the correct docket fee should be based on the actual market value of the shares, certified to be P5,511,000 as of February 1990, resulting in a deficiency. The trial court denied this motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed NSC’s special civil action for certiorari, characterizing the action as one for specific performance, not recovery of property, and finding no intention to mislead or evade payment of correct fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in characterizing the nature of private respondent’s action as one for specific performance and not for recovery of property, and consequently, in not finding that the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction due to non-payment of the required docket fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while petitioner NSC correctly argued that the action was for the recovery of property rather than for specific performance (akin to an action to execute a deed of sale to regain ownership, as held in Ruiz v. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.), petitioner NSC was estopped from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees. Petitioner NSC filed its first motion to dismiss in 1990 based on prescription, not lack of jurisdiction. It then filed an answer, submitted a pre-trial brief, and actively participated in the proceedings. It was only in 1993, more than three years later, that it filed a new motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court ruled that while lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage, a party may be estopped if it has actively taken part in the proceedings and only objects to jurisdiction because the subsequent judgment or order is adverse. The deficiency in the payment of docket fees was declared a lien on any judgment that may be rendered in favor of private respondent Jacinto.